Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Cats (Protection)

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I beg leave to present a petition that has been signed by more than 311,000 people, and which is submitted by the Cats Protection League. The petition urges the Government that
The minimum age for the possession and use of air weapons and crossbows be raised to seventeen.
The sale of air weapons, crossbows and ammunition by mail order be prohibited.
The penalty on conviction for misuse of air weapons and crossbows to include confiscation of said weapons and any ammunition.
In essence, the petition is about protecting people, especially children, and family pets such as cats and dogs. I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table

Horses (Export)

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Vivien Mary Fisher, of Straw House farm, Ripon, North Yorkshire. She represents 250,000 people, whose petition was delivered to No. 10 Downing street by the noble Lord Oaksey, myself and Desert Orchid—a very great horse —last Saturday. The petition concerns the vital need to maintain minimum values for the export of horses, or a suitable equivalent protection, after 1992. People of all sections of our community, of all parties, of all sexes, and of all ages, are anxious and determined about the matter. The petition is vital.
The petition is addressed
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
It
sheweth that due to European Community law this country may lose existing legislation known as Minimum Values in the Animal Health Act 1981 which gives power to protect equines of low value from live transportation to other countries for ultimate slaughter.
We believe that that travel is likely to be seriously inhumane, and the ultimate slaughter also seriously inhumane and upsetting to the animals and to the people of this land.
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House will urge the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries arid food to seek and use every means available to prevent a recurrence in the trafficking of low valued equines to other countries and moreover to continue to make such effort until a satisfactory conclusion has been arrived at in accordance with the opinion of equine welfare organisations. And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Townmead School, West Drayton

Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the parents, pupils and staff of Townmead school, West Drayton, in the county of Middlesex. The petition states
The Townmead School has decided, following a ballot of the parents and children attending the School, to apply for Grant Maintained Status as Heathrow City Technology College, and that some 98 per cent. of those voting supported this proposition, and that the School has the support for this application from leading industrialists in West Drayton and the area around Heathrow Airport, who recognise the vital importance of the School providing a pool of well educated young people, able to play their part in sustaining the competitive status of industry and commerce locally.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will request the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reach a decision on their application before the School breaks up for the summer holidays on the 23rd July 1991, bearing in mind that the statutory period for consultation for this application expired on the 26th May 1991, and that the statutory period for consultation on a proposal by the Hillingdon Education Committee to close the School expired on the 30th June 1991. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day it is passed.")

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Davies: Both amendments were added by the Government during the Bill's passage through another place. They are technical, inasmuch as they do not interfere with the Bill's main purpose but relate to the date of implementation of the measures that it contains. They neither weaken the Bill nor strengthen it, so it may seem odd that I should propose their adoption.
It was not considered necessary so to amend the Bill when it passed through this House, when Ministers suggested a large number of amendments to make the Bill acceptable to the Government. I accepted them in good faith, and the Bill proceeded without delay with all-party and Government support. In all my discussions with Ministers and officials at the Department of the Environment, there was never any suggestion that the amendments now before the House would be necessary. Neither has the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds —the Bill's principal architect—considered that such amendments are necessary.
It is, however, a fact of political life that no private Member's Bill can reach the statute book without the Government's support or acquiescence—and as the Government want the amendments, I am willing to accept them. I do so not because I believe that they will improve the Bill, but because that is what I must do if it is to be enacted.
The Bill was introduced by my friend, the late Member of Parliament for Neath, Donald Coleman, last autumn. If enacted, it will strengthen the protection afforded to wildlife, especially predatory birds, against destruction by the use of illegal poisons—especially pesticides. Acceptance of the amendments will speed the Bill's progress to the statute book, and I have no doubt that, when it receives Royal Assent, it will provide a small but lasting legislative memorial to a former Member of Parliament who was widely respected in all parts of the House.
Amendment No. 1 concerns the date of implementation, and would effectively provide a two-month delay before the Act's provisions come into force. When it was moved in another place by Baroness Blatch, Minister of State, Department of the Environment, it prompted a debate on the merits of an amnesty—a delay in the


implementation of the Act, during which persons in possession of pesticides or poisons used in the past illicitly to poison wildlife could surrender them for safe disposal.
That proposal was firmly rejected by the Minister in another place, who said:
On Second Reading, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised the question of an amnesty period for those who have stocks of unwanted pesticides so as to allow those pesticides to be withdrawn. We do not think that an amnesty is necessary.
I draw the attention of the House to that last sentence in particular. The Minister continued:
However, the two-month period following Royal Assent would enable landowners to reassess their position and that of their employees before the owners themselves become liable for their employees' actions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 1991; Vol. 529, c. 188.]
9.45 am
On 21 May, the Minister of State, Department of the Environment said that an amnesty was not necessary, yet on 23 May, the Ministry of Agriculture published the strangely titled document, "Proposals for an approval and consent for the storage and supply of certain pesticides for safe disposal", suggesting precisely that which had been rejected only two days earlier by the Department of the Environment. In that document, MAFF proposed a period for the disposal of
currently unapproved pesticides from farms to commercial stores … prior to safe disposal".
If such a provision was not thought to be necessary on 21 May, according to the Department of the Environment, why was the reverse thought to be true on 23 May, according to the Ministry? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will answer that point when he replies.
The Minister of State's statement that
the two-month period following Royal Assent would enable landowners to reassess their position
sounds sinister. Does the Department have evidence that landowners have hitherto been guilty of the practices that the Bill will make illegal? If so, those landowners have been causing their employees to commit offences. Can the Department produce evidence that that has occurred? If the Department is aware of such malpractices—which are already offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—what action has it taken, and what prosecutions have been brought?
Is it intended that the amnesty that the Ministry suggests will operate to coincide with the two-month delay in the Act's implementation on which the Department is insisting? Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, will the Ministry and the Department get their act together and ensure that the amnesty is publicised? It will only work if it is properly publicised.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by the word "amnesty". My understanding is that—in common with the practice adopted for much other legislation—Royal Assent will be followed by a period of two months before the Act comes into force. That is standard practice in many other instances. The hon. Gentleman's use of the word "amnesty" suggests that he expects that actions that are already offences under legislation will be included in his so-called amnesty. I cannot believe that that is what he requires.

Mr. Davies: Certainly not, and I apologise if I have confused the hon. Gentleman. My intention is to

encourage the Minister to clarify what appears to be an area of confusion between the Ministry and the Department.
In another place, Lord Falkland suggested a two-month amnesty during which those in possession of pesticides—the ownership of which is not in itself illegal —would be encouraged to surrender them for proper disposal. There is no suggestion that ownership of such products per se should be made illegal.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Davies: I am quite happy to give way. We have plenty of time this morning. I understand exactly what is happening, and I am prepared to play along for a reasonable length of time. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) acknowledges the point that I am making—[Interruption.] I am delighted to have that assurance from the Minister—that he is anxious to get the measure on the statute book. Perhaps he will use the good offices of the Government Whip sitting beside him and nodding sagely, to ensure that we make progress.

Sir Charles Morrison: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at when he talks of an amnesty. As he has just said, it is permitted to keep certain substances for certain legal purposes. I therefore cannot see why it should be necessary to have a two-month amnesty—the law is the law. Why should such an amnesty in itself encourage people who possess these substances to hand them in?

Mr. Davies: I am delighted to explain the point to the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters. I must first correct him on a minor point. Many of the pesticides that are most commonly misused are not available for any legal purpose. They are not approved under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for any legal purpose. I have acknowledged that their ownership is not illegal, but their use is. Handing them in was the course of action recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture. The hon. Gentleman's question should more properly be addressed to the Ministry, therefore. Meanwhile, I draw his attention to the circular issued on 23 May 1991 by the Ministry of Agriculture, in which he will note the suggestion that a period be allowed for handing in pesticides for safe storage and destruction.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is it not at least a possibility that a local police officer may suspect a gamekeeper of indulging in the use of these poisons? By being given this period, the gamekeeper will have the opportunity to show the local constabulary that he is disposing of the pesticides so that he will not be committing an ofence after the two months have elapsed; otherwise, the local police might suspect the gamekeeper of committing an offence—if the Act came into force earlier. A breathing space rather than an amnesty might serve a useful purpose in the rural community.

Mr. Davies: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that telling point. He also alluded to the publicity attendant on the passage of the Bill and to the action that I hope the Ministry will take. For the life of me I cannot understand' why the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture cannot get their act together. The Department has said that it supports the measure but that there is no need for an amnesty; at the same time, the


Ministry, which is responsible for the control and storage of these pesticides, claims that an amnesty is needed. So I suggest that the Minister gets his act together.
If there is to be a two month delay, let us use it for the amnesty suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture. Then, with the publiclity that I hope the Ministry will generate, we can at least start to reduce stocks of substances that are being illegally used if not illegally held.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on something important by talking about the publicity. The Bill will need publicity to work properly. The people who use these materials are not illiterate but they often do not watch television, listen to the radio or read newspapers, so it is difficult to get across to them the information that they need to avoid getting into trouble. Naturally, I do not wish to be insulting to anyone.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to be insulting, but I disagree with him, because using these pesticides requires some knowledge of their effect and of how to use them to ensure the maximum impact. I am also confident that those who use them for illegal purposes are fully aware that they are doing it against the law. The purpose of the Bill is to extend responsibility. If a gamekeeper is under illegal instructions to use pesticides, once this measure is enacted, not only that gamekeeper but his employer will be responsible in law if it can be shown that the latter knowingly caused or permitted the gamekeeper, on his behalf, to use these poisons. No element of confusion or ignorance can creep in here.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made a valid point about the publicity surrounding the amnesty. It would allow a gamekeeper who feels threatened or pressurised by his employer to keep down the number of predators or of what are regarded as unwelcome visitors to the moor or the pheasant hatchery to tell his employer that there is an amnesty and to suggest that they take the opportunity it provides to get rid of the pesticides. However much legislation we pass, as long as there are stocks of these highly toxic pesticides the potential for their illegal use remains.
I hope that there is general agreement among hon. Members who have spoken thus far this morning—I also hope that the hon. Member for Upminster, who raised a point of definition, is satisfied with my explanation—that an amnesty will work only if it is properly publicised. Getting the message through to the sort of people likely to have quantities of old pesticides in store is bound to be difficult. Will the Government plan a campaign of publicity and advertising to alert hill farmers and gamekeepers to the amnesty? In his discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture—presumably the two Departments hold discussions—has the Minister decided which chemicals and pesticides will be the subject of such a campaign?
Once the amnesty is over, assuming that there is one, will the Government make it an offence to be in possession of chemicals whose use is no longer legal and which were the subject of the amnesty? I am sure that Conservative Members fully understand that some pesticides cannot be

legally used. To own them is not illegal, but if there is evidence that they are being misused, there is surely every good reason to make their ownership illegal.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: By making that request, the hon. Gentleman has cleared up a confusion in my mind concerning what he says about an amnesty. As I understand it, an amnesty is relevant simply to the possession of something that is illegal—for example, the possession of cannabis or firearms. One cannot have an amnesty for things that it is perfectly legal to possess. An amnesty would be relevant only if the point that he made —the possession of substances, the use of which would be illegal—were itself brought into effect.

10 am

Mr. Davies: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I do not claim credit for the amnesty. That point was made in the other place by Lord Falkland. That was the precise form of words used by the Minister in the other place—he referred to it as an amnesty. The Ministry of Agriculture, has proposed taking that idea forward. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to call it something else, I shall not take issue with him.
As for the illegal holding of poisons and pesticides, will the Minister have a word with his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Office with a view to bringing the law on the use of strychnine, which currently is legal in Northern Ireland, into line with the law in Great Britain, and ensure that the use of strychnine for the above-ground poisoning of wildlife is made illegal in Northern Ireland?
Amendment No. 2 makes it explicit that the legislation shall not be retrospective. Why are the Government suggesting that the amendment is necessary? The Bill already makes it implicit that the proposed measures shall not be retrospective. It is common to all legislation that it shall not be retrospective. How many other private Member's Bills have been amended in this way? Will a similar provision be included in all future Government legislation, making it clear that the proposed provisions are not retrospective? I hope that the Minister will clarify that point when he replies.
I have been privileged to take this measure through the House of Commons. I am grateful for the support that I have received from my hon. Friends and for the somewhat less than wholehearted support of certain Conservative Members. However, their support has been forthcoming. Moreover, I have received every courtesy and assistance from Government Ministers and their staff hitherto. I hope that what has been established thus far will be continued this morning. I look forward to the rapid progress of this measure.

Sir Charles Morrison: As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) knows, despite his final two sentences' I support the Bill. It is a helpful step forward. I join him in what he said about the late Donald Coleman, but the hon. Gentleman has been a little modest in relation to the part that he has played in helping the Bill through the House, on which he is to be congratulated.
Before the hon. Gentleman began his speech I had questioned why the amendments were necessary. By about halfway through his speech I thought that I understood why amendment No. 1 was necessary, but by the time he ended his speech I was in a greater muddle than I was at the beginning. I think that I understand all that he says


about the ownership of illegal substances and their use and his attempt to draw a distinction between them, but I am still in a bit of a muddle about them.
As for amendment No. 2, it is very important that there should be no possibility of retrospection in the application of the Bill when it becomes an Act, but that must be true —the Minister will correct me in due course if I am wrong —of any legislation that passes through the House. While I have been a Member of Parliament we have occasionally been presented with Bills that imply a degree of retrospection. On such occasions a high proportion of hon. Members have expressed either regret or fury or total opposition to such a prospect. I do not, therefore, understand why amendment No. 2 is necessary.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair to gamekeepers. The unfortunate reality is that from time to time over the years illegal substances have been used not only by misguided or unwise gamekeepers —who, I am sure, have been told in the vast majority of cases what the law is and who perfectly well understand what the law is—but by other people in certain parts of the country in an attempt to control pests of one sort or another, including perhaps foxes, and to protect lambs and other animals. There is no excuse for anyone to act in breach of the law. The Bill will ensure that there are many fewer breaches of the law. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman should implicitly have picked on one particular group who are responsible—as is recognised by an increasing number of people—for more effective conservation than any other group of people in the land, although I have respect for many other groups.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for being pedantic over one point. He referred to illegal substances being used. It is essential to draw a distinction between legal substances—it is the use of those substances that is illegal—and illegal substances themselves, a distinction which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) recognised and drew, because he suggested that the possession of some substances should be illegal rather than merely the use of them. That would be to extend the law seriously. Therefore I ask my hon. Friend to say that it is the use of some substances that is illegal rather than the possession of them.

Sir Charles Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I concur with what he says. He has clarified in precise terms exactly what the position is.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that—

Mr. Ron Davies: I think that Hansard will record that I referred to gamekeepers in response to an intervention. I recognise that there are a number of groups of people who misuse products in the way that has been discussed this morning. I was not in any sense singling out gamekeepers for special attention. I was merely using them as one example.

Sir Charles Morrison: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification of that point, which I am sure is helpful and will come as a relief to gamekeepers.
I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman about the need for co-ordination between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Until the hon. Gentleman drew attention to it, I was not aware that apparently the two Departments do not act as one. Over matters as important as this, it is

paramount that they should co-ordinate their activities and, for that matter, as the hon. Gentleman said, so should the Northern Ireland Office. It is a pity that we do not have a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister here today. If we did, the activities of the two Departments could be co-ordinated at this moment on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps, however, I do the two Departments an injustice. In reality they may be co-ordinated, but it seems that until now the two Departments have not acted as one. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to put my worries to rest.
Nevertheless, with or without the amendments, I hope that the Bill quickly becomes an Act.

Mr. Hardy: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). Not for the first time, I join him in supporting conservation measures. I accept that the desirable end of conservation to my mind may not always be the same as his, but I recognise his long commitment. Like him, I do not wish to make a long speech because I support the attitude that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) took to the amendments.
It is appropriate to refer to Donald Coleman. It seems a long time since Donald and I left the Tea Room to watch last year's draw for private Member's Bills. It seems as long since we discussed what Bill he would choose to introduce. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly for taking over the Bill on behalf of our late and highly esteemed friend.
The Bill attracted Donald not merely because of the wide contribution that it would make, but because one species that needs the additional protection that the Bill confers is the red kite of Wales. There could be no more fitting memorial to Donald, who gave long service to the Principality, than that the red kite should survive in Wales. I hope that when people see the red kite flying in the central mountainous region they will recall that Donald Coleman may have made a significant contribution to its survival.
The Bill goes rather wider than that and it is probably appropriate for reference to be made to an amnesty. I hope that the House will not dwell at length on that. It might have been better to refer to breathing space rather than to an amnesty, with all the overtones that that has.
I echo the point that the hon. Member for Devizes made about the gamekeeper being an important instrument in the cause of conservation. For proof of that, we do not need to go back to the days of Richard Jefferies, who wrote about the gamekeeper in the late Victorian period, because in the 1970s and 1980s Barry Hines wrote about a gamekeeper whose life was set in or close to my constituency.
I recognise that the gamekeeper can play a significant part. I sometimes wonder and worry a little about the new breed of gamekeeper who may not live and work full time in the countryside and who sees his job as taking quick forays into the countryside to kill off vermin or creatures that may threaten the modern syndicate of shooters. I prefer the traditional gamekeeper, who lived in the area that he served, who knew virtually every square inch of the ground and who could certainly make a significant contribution. The Bill will at least allow the responsible gamekeeper the opportunity to say to the irresponsible employer who may want bigger and bigger bags that he cannot act as ruthlessly as perhaps a small minority of shooting people may require.
I hope that the Bill will mean not only the cessation of the use of poisons—far too much poison is used in rural England—but will consign the pole trap to the museum. It may take longer than two months, as the Bill propses—I recall that the gin trap was used to catch badgers in South Yorkshire more than 10 years after it was made unlawful by the House. One hopes that such a long period will not elapse with the pole trap and that those that are not destroyed will be presented to countryside museums.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the gin trap. We all agree that it was a particularly unpleasant trap. Will he comment on the fen trap, which is used by warreners and people who want to control vermin? I assume that he would not want to ban that trap because if it is used properly, it is a humane trap.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We seem to be wandering wide of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Hardy: It may be the only time that I shall get this opportunity, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
10.15 am
It was a coincidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), another south Wales colleague and friend, was drawn in the same ballot as Donald Coleman. I am glad that he is here because he was another friend of Donald. My hon. Friend took Donald's place on the Council of Europe, where Donald made such a considerable contribution.
I trust that the House will accept the Lords amendments, not because we enthuse about them, but because if we do not do so, the Bill will not reach the statute book. It is important that the measure should succeed.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome any Bill that protects wildlife and the countryside. It has the support of the House; it would not have got this far without it.
The gamekeeper who is interested in and understands his job will be the best possible agent for conservation. He will certainly never misuse the powerful weapons that are now available in the form of toxic chemicals and would use them only responsibly and legally.
The Bill is a pretty modest measure. Its effect is to bring a wider section of the community into the net. In other words, employers, landowners or farmers will be prosecuted if one of their employees carries out an illegal act. However, that illegal act is already enshrined in the original legislation.
I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will sharpen employment procedures where they might be lax and that employers will double-check with their staff. However, I suggest that those who are hell-bent on breaking the law are likely, in the secrecy and privacy of the coutryside, to continue to do so. I therefore cannot forecast a substantial change in the protection of certain species.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I share the sentiments that my hon. Friend expressed in his last statement. Those who break the law are a small minority of landowners and those who own sporting rights. The Bill, although it has a limited use, is likely to affect those who are determined to

break the law. However, it will certainly sharpen the interest that landowners take in the activities of their gamekeepers. In the extreme cases that we have seen, mostly in the wilder parts of the country, it is unlikely that the Bill will make a significant difference.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that this is not Second Reading. We are dealing with the Lords amendments and the debate must be restricted to them.

Mr. Wiggin: How right you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to remind us of that as I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who moved the amendments and then spent a persuasive half hour telling us why they were wholly unacceptable. I am sure that when you come to decide on the difficult issue of the voice and the vote being the same, you will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Ron Davies: I cannot let that comment go unchallenged. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the record, it will be clear to him that I accept the Lords amendments. I pressed the Minister for clarification of their consequences and implications, but I made it clear that I supported the amendments.

Mr. Wiggin: I am not going to spend next week reading Hansard. I heard clearly what the hon. Gentleman said, as I am sure you did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issue is whether the amendments are sensible and acceptable. I agreed with most of what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said. The provisions of the amendments were not in the Bill in the first instance, they are not required and they are entirely pedantic. If the legislation is good and if it has the approval of the House and of another place—it has that approval—there is no reason to delay putting the Bill into effect.
I believe, and have done for many years, that the principle of retrospective legislation is bad and leads to muddle. The public expect laws to have a starting date that they understand. They do not expect to be accused of doing something illegal which was at one time legal but was made illegal retrospectively. I entirely agree with the principle behind the amendments, but I do not understand why it is necessary to write it into the Bill. If prosecutions were contemplated or pending on activities that took place before Royal Assent was given, I should have thought that it was a perfectly good defence to say that what one did was legal at the time. I am not keen on the amendments, but we shall see how the debate proceeds.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill is very welcome. I, like other hon. Members, am grateful to the late Donald Coleman for having introduced it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) is a sponsor of the Bill and he knew Donald Coleman very well. They always encouraged each other's efforts in the interests of Wales and of the Welsh rural community. This is an all-party Bill, as it is sponsored by hon. Members from Plaid Cymru, the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, and that also makes it commendable.
The amendments are of marginal importance. If we are to accept the first amendment—and I shall not oppose it —I endorse the call from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that, in addition to using the space provided by that amendment to publicise the Bill, we use the space


to publicise the proposed pesticides amnesty. That is logical. If the rural and farming community is to be targeted for information about changes in the legislation, let us use the time provided by the amendment wisely. That the delay is a two-month delay is of marginal importance, but if there is to be such a delay, I hope that it will not mean that more offences will be committed in that time.
On the second amendment, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made a valid—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman wonders whether more offences will be committed during those two months. If the acts are already illegal and if gamekeepers are already breaking the law and rightly liable to punishment if they take the course mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the only difference would be that during the two months, even if the landowner or the employer knew that such acts were being committed, he could not be prosecuted under this Bill. I shall have something to say in a moment about whether he could be prosecuted anyway.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a matter of extending the remit of the legislation to cover those who are aware of what is happening as opposed to those who are the activists or the direct cause of the activity. That is why I said that the amendments provide a marginal extension. Nevertheless, one hopes that people will not take advantage of the delay in the new, tougher legislation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that retrospective legislation is a bad principle. I say that as a legislator and as a lawyer. The second amendment is merely a matter of clarification. When interpreted, the law does not have retrospective intention, so the amendments are merely for the avoidance of doubt. It is extremely doubtful, therefore, whether they are necessary.

Mr. Arbuthnot: As a lawyer and a legislator, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bad principle to introduce otiose words into legislation?

Mr. Hughes: If one were to judge which was the worse principle, I think that it would probably be retrospective legislation, but otiose wording in legislation is something we could well do without. For people who are not legislators or lawyers, one of the problems of legislation is that it contains far too many words that they cannot understand, and far too many cross-references that they cannot find without days and days of research.
Therefore, I should prefer the second amendment not to be accepted but if it is, it should be nothing but a confirmation. I hope that all of us who sound so pietistic remember our views on retrospective legislation on other occasions. We are all under pressure—I do not say this in a party political way—to give in, especially when Government decide legislate retrospectively.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said. It is precisely the concern about species such as the red kite which has motivated such legislation. One of the best weeks that I have ever spent was in west Wales, a part of the country which I know well, having been brought up in south Wales. I spent two days in the hills of west Wales doing nothing but observing the red kite. The rarity and beauty of such species add enormously to the richness of Britain. We are wonderfully endowed with a variety of species, many of which are scarce. There a re very few red kites—I believe that there are about 50 or 100 pairs, but certainly not many more. I understand that all

of them are now in west Wales. We must ensure that we do all that we can to protect endangered species, whether they be birds or otherwise. The Bill is a step in that direction.

Mr. Wiggin: The kite became extinct in Wales; the current birds were imported from Spain and were introduced deliberately into the countryside.

Mr. Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I believe that the red kites in Wales are the only red kites in the United Kingdom. There are only between 50 and 100 pairs, or that was certainly the case when I last checked. Other species may have been introduced into Britain which are not natives of this country and some of which we may not be too happy to have, but as stewards we have a duty to protect the more rare and beautiful ones, as they are here.
I wish the legislation well. The amendments are marginal, and no doubt we can dispose of them and move on to what may be more controversial business.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I must declare an interest as a landowner, a sportsman and the chairman of the British Field Sports Society. I have a keen interest in the proceedings of this Bill and of others that have a bearing on any sports followed today. I endorse what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said about the activities of those who break the law and slaughter protected species unlawfully. That is extremely damaging to sporting interests and, clearly, nothing does us more harm in the public's eyes than to be seen behaving in such a way. We all tend to be tainted with the same brush, so I welcome the Bill, now promoted by the hon. Member for Caerphilly following the death of Donald Coleman, and I hope that it will be successful.
I hope that the Bill will not only pass through the House, but that it will, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly hopes, curtail the activities of those who break the law. I put my reservations about that when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Wiggin).
I was puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly because, while the meaning of words is in the ear of the listener, I did not have the same impression as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare about what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not think that he said that the amendments were unnecessary, but he was slightly muddled. He said that he did not especially welcome the amendments and that they had nothing to do with him, but he went on to make an impassioned and rather good defence of them, especially Lords amendment No. 1 which deals with the two-month amnesty. I am not sure what he really feels about that.

Mr. Ron Davies: I will make it clear. I do not expect that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will spend all next week reading today's Hansard—nor will his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). However, if he can find two minutes to read what I said, he will see that I said that this was a matter of political reality. Although I am paraphrasing now, I said that no private Member's legislation would reach the statute book without the support or the acquiescence of the Government. They insisted on the amendments. It is not possible for me to stop the amendments and, because I want the Bill on the statute book, I must accept them.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is exactly what I heard the hon. Gentleman say, so I do not need to refer to Hansard. He also extolled at length the virtues of and need for such an amnesty. We welcomed the fact that people would destroy the pesticides in their possession that could be used for unlawful purposes—even though holding them is not an unlawful act. I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman wants the amendment or whether he supports it only because it has been thrust upon him.

Mr. Ron Davies: I pointed out the inconsistency of approach between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When the amendment was discussed, the spokesman for the Department of the Environment in the Lords said that an amnesty for unauthorised pesticides was unnecessary. Two days later the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced a consultative document proposing the very thing that the Department of the Environment had said was unnecessary. I did not make an impassioned plea, but I said that if we were to have the amendment and an amnesty, then for goodness' sake the two Departments should get their act together and ensure that their opinions coincided.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I heard the hon. Gentleman rightly say that the two Ministers in the respective Departments did not seem to have quite the same view on the need for the amendment at that stage. No doubt they have reconciled their differences, which is why we are discussing the matter today. I still do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered my question because I am no clearer about how he feels, as opposed to how my hon. Friends on the Front Bench feel—but never mind. As he rightly says, the provision will go into the Bill because that is probably the only way in which the Bill can be taken through successfully.
I welcome the amnesty. It will help because people will, I hope, dispose of any such substances to ensure that their keepers do not misuse them. When a law imposes a substantial new duty of care, people should have time to appreciate what is happening and to adjust accordingly. That is especially so for this Bill as it concerns substances that they are perfectly entitled to hold. Sometimes we imagine that the whole nation is listening breathlessly to every word that we say in the House and that every law that we pass is imprinted on their memory, but that is not the case. I am sure that it will be some time before the news about the activities that have been made unlawful in the Bill filters through to some of my fellow landowners in the Outer Hebrides. Where such duties are imposed, it is right for there to be a period during which the information can be disseminated and people can be made aware of their new duties.
Lords amendment No. 2 deals with retrospective legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I are lawyers. I deplore retrospective legislation. No reputable legislator should consider it. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, especially those who are Treasury Ministers, will take those words to heart. I note that there is a clause in the Finance Bill with which I do not agree as it is retrospective in its effect on building societies. I use that example to illustrate the fact that retrospective legislation can be introduced. It has been introduced on numerous

occasions by the Labour party when in government, and, I am sorry to say, sometimes by my own Ministers. No lawyer likes retrospective legislation. No one should find that their lawful acts become unlawful. Another example that springs to mind is the legislation about war criminals, on which we disagreed with the other place. We insisted that activities that were not punishable under English law should now be punishable under English law 50 years later. A more substantial retrospective change would be hard to find. I said at the time, and I say again, that such legislation is deplorable. It is important that when there is any doubt, it is made clear in the legislation that what we are doing is not retrospective.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Although I entirely agree in principle with what my hon. Friend has said, the effect of what he has said is that the burden of these illegal acts will, for the next two months, fall on the gamekeepers and the little men, rather than on the people who order them to do those acts. We must also consider that.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yes, but that has always been the case. That liability is not new. It has existed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For the next two months the liability for these actions will lie with those who do them, irrespective of whether they have been ordered to do them, or whether their employer condones the action. I take my hon. Friend's point that the sooner we can make the law effective against landowners who order their keepers to commit an unlawful act, the better. However, landowners who have been faintly aware that their keepers are up to mischief, but have not pursued them with the vigour that we should like to see should not be retrospectively put at risk. It is the principle, rather than any particular instance of how the Act might be brought into effect, that we should consider when we are legislating.
No one likes otiose legislation or otiose words in legislation. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. I am not clear whether the Act could be retrospective without those words. I must confess that I have not looked in sufficient detail at the 1981 Act to see whether that might be the case. We are not introducing new legislation, but amending existing legislation. I do not know whether, if the Bill is passed as an amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, what is now made unlawful under that Act would have been unlawful prior to the date of the Bill being implemented. If there is any risk of that, I am sure that we are right to take this action.
I question the amendment and the Bill in one way. Perhaps the hon. Member for Caerphilly, a fellow lawyer, or the Minister can enlighten me. I should have thought that anyone who ordered his gamekeeper to commit an unlawful act would be guilty of conspiracy to undertake that act. If I am right, the law could be used against them in any event and I am not sure that the Bill will add anything to the powers that already exist with regard to landowners who order their keepers to act in that way. The entire Bill may be otiose. Perhaps someone will enlighten me. If I am right, the law of conspiracy would carry substantially greater penalties than the Bill. Those with the task of enforcing the law should carefully consider whether to proceed under the law of conspiracy or under the Bill when they have evidence that someone has behaved in that fashion.
I welcome measures for the preservation of all species of wildlife. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)


and I sometimes disagree about the balance of that preservation but not about its purpose or end, which is to preserve all these species. I do not believe, however, that the Bill will have a substantial effect on the safety of the red kite in Wales. Lord McIntosh said that 52 breeding sites are defended by Gurkhas, so anyone who went near those sites would take his life in his hands. The protection given by the Gurkhas is much more effective than any protection that we will provide under the Bill.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I wish to answer my hon. Friend's conspiracy point. If a gamekeeper does something illegal, not because he is ordered to do so but because he is permitted to do so by his boss, it will be a little difficult to convict the landowner of conspiracy merely because he knew that something was happening and permitted it.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that that is correct. There will be occasions when the Bill adds strength to the position of the law enforcer. My comments on which of the two ways forward is more appropriate would, therefore, still apply, but only where the landowner had ordered his gamekeeper to do something illegal. I am sure that every hon. Member deplores such activities. I can think of nothing more despicable than a person ordering someone else to do something unlawful, when that person has no power to refuse because refusal would lead to dismissal, thus putting him in danger of being imprisoned if caught.
I welcome the Bill in so far as it goes. It will help curtail the activities of such people. In that spirit, I am sure that we will be successful in passing the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): It may be true that the public do not read Hansard as avidly as some of us may assume, but those who read today's Hansard will be impressed by the fact that the House has been debating these two amendments for more than an hour—longer than the total time given to Second Reading and the Committee stage.
I am glad to have joined the proceedings at this stage. I am new to the Bill. I am here because my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) cannot attend. The fact that I am new to the Bill does not mean that I am less enthusiastic than my hon. Friend. The House is aware that the Government support the Bill wholeheartedly.
As others said, it is sad that the original promotor of the Bill, Donald Coleman, was not able to take it forward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on the way in which he picked up the Bill and on his helpful and constructive approach during earlier stages. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), I felt that the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment a little grudgingly. In the end, he said that he supported it, but he showed a less gracious approach than we enjoyed earlier in the proceedings.
The speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly contrasted with the eloquent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). We have in the House a diminishing number of what we could call the gamekeeper-employing classes, but I felt that my hon. Friend was the authentic voice of that group—

Sir Charles Morrison: I am not one of them.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend says that he is not one of them. Nevertheless, I thought that the tone was there.
The Government share the concern that has been expressed by everyone who has taken part in the debate about the illegal killing of wild birds and animals. The Bill makes it an offence for a person to cause or permit another to contravene the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which prohibit the use of certain means of killing or taking wild birds or animals. People who manage or oversee land would become responsible for ensuring that they or their employees do not use unlawful means to kill wildlife.
10.45 am
The two amendments are minor and technical. They would bring the Bill more closely into line with similar provisions in other legislation on the creation of new offences. The first amendment would ensure that the Bill does not come into force until two months after the day it is enacted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) pointed out, this is a normal measure. There is nothing sinister about it. Where a new offence has been created, it is customary to allow that delay. As my hon. Friend said, it has merit for landowners all over Britain, even those in distant parts of the country, such as the Outer Hebrides—not that my hon. Friend or I wish to suggest that they are more disposed to break the law than those closer to the Palace of Westminster. The amendment allows for a period in which publicity can be given to and information can be disseminated about the existence of this new offence. It is right, therefore, that the Bill should follow the customary practice in legislation that creates new offences.
When the Bill was considered in another place, it was suggested that there should be an amnesty period to enable people to withdraw unwanted stocks of pesticides. The hon. Member for Caerphilly made that point. The Bill does not change the law relating to the holding and storing of pesticides. It was made clear in another place that we do not consider that there is any need in the Bill for an amnesty. There are ways and means of disposing of unwanted pesticides. Anyone who wishes to find out how to dispose of these substances safely should contact the waste disposal department of the relevant local authority. The two-month period after enactment of the Bill would enable landowners to reassess their position and that of their employees before the landowners become liable for their employees' actions.
There has been some confusion—certainly in the mind of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and possibly in the minds of other hon. Members—about the proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Rather elaborately, the hon. Member for Caerphilly tried to construct an image of disagreement and of lack of communication between my Department and MAFF. I assure him that there is no difference between us.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to proposals for an industry-run scheme to enable farmers to dispose of unapproved and unwanted pesticides. He suggested that the advice given by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place did not square with those proposals. There is not really a problem. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who seems to have left his place temporarily, understood the position more clearly. The Ministry has issued for consultation a draft approval and consent under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, which are intended to assist in the safe disposal of pesticides. They would enable, subject to strict


conditions, the transfer of currently unapproved pesticides from farms to commercial stores and their storage in those stores before safe disposal. They would allow that to take place within the law.
The sale and use of such pesticides are not being legalised; nor is their on-farm storage. I stress that it is already illegal to store unapproved pesticides. The MAFF proposals do not represent an amnesty of any kind for farmers who possess stocks of such substances. The proposal simply assists with the operation of an industry-run scheme. It is essentially a practical arrangement. There should be no linkage between the two-month gap that we propose—between the date of Royal Assent and the date when the Bill's provisions become effective—and the proposed period when farmers will be able to transfer unapproved pesticides. Those periods may overlap, but there is no direct relationship between the two.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is there an end date for the period during which farmers can get rid of unapproved pesticides? Surely after that, if they have them, they will have to do something with them, and getting rid of them would seem to be the most sensible and beneficial course.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The Ministry is allowing the two-month period during which farmers can dispose of unapproved pesticides and I suspect that farmers who fail to take advantage of that special opportunity will be more likely to encounter prosecution, especially given that it is already an offence—and it will remain an offence—even to hold unapproved pesticides.

Mr. Ron Davies: Let me help the Minister. The proposed consent will expire on 31 December. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) asked whether it was time-limited and I confirm that it is.

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right: the consent is time-limited.
The Bill strengthens the 1981 Act by bringing it into line with equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland and with other legislation controlling, among other things, the sale, storage and use of pesticides. It will therefore make a useful addition to the existing stringent controls over the killing of wildlife, especially birds of prey.
Fears were expressed in the other place that there might be an increase in the number of illegal poisoning incidents in the period before the Act became operative. I emphasise that the 1981 Act already makes it an offence to use illegal methods to kill wildlife, and there are heavy penalties for those convicted of breaking the Act's stringent provisions. The Bill does not change the law in that respect and no one should doubt that appropriate action will be taken to deal with people who are prepared to use cruel or indiscriminate methods to kill birds and animals that do no harm.
My Department is participating in a major long-term publicity campaign with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against the illegal poisoning of wildlife and we are supporting the campaign with a range of publicity to encourage people to use pesticides properly, to control predators by legal methods and to report illegal poisoning methods. Anyone suspecting pesticide poisoning of wildlife or, for that matter, domestic pets, should immediately contact the police or the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Ministry has an established system for investigating deaths of wildlife which may be due to pesticide poisoning. That system includes field inquiries to assess the circumstances and collect any bait and carcases. A post-mortem is carried out to rule out other causes of death such as injury or disease and a chemical analysis identifies the type and quantity of pesticide present. Where the circumstances point to illegal poisoning, evidence is prepared for a possible prosecution. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will encourage his constituents to be vigilant and to watch out for cases where there may have been illegal poisoning of wildlife.
We shall continue to work with our colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and with other Departments in reviewing any pesticides widely implicated in poisoning incidents to see whether tighter controls over those substances are needed.
It is opportune that the publicity campaign is running in parallel with the passage of the Bill, because it helps to reinforce the message that we are not prepared to tolerate these illegal practices. We know that farmers and other land managers need to control predators, but they must use proper lawful means that do not threaten wildlife, especially protected species. The general public can also help by using garden and other pesticides carefully and safely.
In the report issued in April by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Nature Conservancy Council, it was reported that hundreds of birds, including many specially protected species, have been poisoned, shot, trapped and killed illegally throughout the United Kingdom in the past 10 years. The report showed that illegal persecution had caused the deaths of 40 golden eagles, 65 peregrine falcons, 57 hen harriers, 24 red kites and 367 buzzards between 1979 and 1989. Many more deaths probably went unrecorded. The Government's response to the 25 recommendations made in that report will be published shortly.
Lords amendment No. 2 would prevent the provisions of the Bill, when enacted, from operating retrospectively. That seems to cause hon. Members a certain amount of concern. The position is simply that anything done before the Bill's enactment would not be an offence, and only those actions taking place after the Bill is enacted would be caught by the provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes pointed out, the House and the Government are, rightly, extremely reluctant to contemplate retrospective legislation of any sort. Wherever possible, we set our faces firmly against it and the amendment merely confirms the position. Legislation that seeks to create new offences generally contains such an exception. It is neither reasonable nor equitable that a person should be put at risk of subsequent prosecution as a result of actions that were not in breach of the law at the time when they were carried out. We see no good reason why the Bill should not include such a provision. I assure hon. Members that the amendment does not represent any weakening of our support for the principles of the Bill, but we do not think it right that those who in the past may not have taken positive steps to ensure that illegal methods of killing wildlife were not used by others under their control should now unwittingly be made liable for such offences themselves.
We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to take great care of our wildlife to preserve its abundance and


diversity. In the 1981 Act, we have one of the best systems in the world to ensure that comprehensive and effective procedures are in place for protecting the species and their habitats, but unfortunately there are those who, by thoughtless or ill-considered actions, undermine those procedures by acting outside the law and ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the British people to preserve our natural heritage.
The Bill has identified a chink in our armour which it is right that we should close. It will help to bring home to people who use or permit the use of illegal methods to kill wildlife the fact that we are prepared to do everything possible to meet our objectives for the protection of our natural heritage, especially endangered species. We must stamp out illegal practices which cause so much unnecessary suffering to our wildlife and the death of species that do no harm. The Government fully support the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Badgers Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF S.2 OF BADGERS ACT 1973

Lords amendment: No. 1, in line 27, leave out "have been reasonably" and insert "reasonably have been".

Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is purely technical.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I will not detain the House, but I could not help noticing that there was a split infinitive in the clause, so I welcome the amendment. We ought to ensure that legislation that goes through the House conforms with the highest educational standards, which the Government are considering carefully at the moment. I look forward to the day when the grammar of all our citizens has improved sufficiently to make it unnecessary to introduce such amendments at such a late stage in our proceedings.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: It would be a pity if the opportunity were lost to congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the skill with which he has piloted the Bill through the House. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

EXTENSION OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 3, leave out "(c)" and insert "(a), (c) or (e)".

Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 8.

Mr. Hughes: The amendments deal with the stopping-up process, which is a rather controversial issue. Throughout our proceedings, my task has been to try to reconcile the various interests. I have had to be a bit of an acrobat at times. I do not know whether that qualifies me for the circus, but I hope that a good Bill will result from the efforts made on all sides. I am reliably informed that the present Bill is indeed a good Bill, although we do riot achieve perfection in this world.
I am extremely grateful to Lord Houghton for the way in which he handled the amendments in the other place. Lord Elton was a distinguished Member of this House for many years and has become a legendary figure, not least for his efforts in animal welfare. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to pay tribute to his efforts with regard to the Bill. He was a very hard bargainer at times, but he was honest and straightforward, and I am deeply grateful to him.
The animal welfare organisations have assisted me at every stage of the Bill and I am deeply grateful to them. Support for the Bill has been widespread throughout the


country. One animal welfare organisation told me that after Third Reading, it received more than 1,000 letters of support for the Bill. That gives some idea of the strength of feeling about the matter.
One particular gentleman who has been very helpful and supportive—and I will name-drop here—is Mr. Phil Drabble. He wrote and spoke to me—

Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most concerned that no Minister from the Foreign Office is present to make a statement about the situation in Yugoslavia. As the House will know, events there are still extremely unstable. There is the potential for probably the worst possible civil war imaginable. There have already been questions about the matter during Foreign Office questions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made a statement. However, events are obviously moving very quickly and many people are extremely concerned. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why is there no Foreign Office Minister here at 11 am to make a statement about that absolutely crucial issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of any request from a Minister for a statement on that serious matter, but I am sure what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Government Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Arbuthnot: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the by-election in Liverpool, Walton yesterday, I understand that an announcement has been made that there is to be an inquiry by the Leader of the Opposition into membership of this House. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had a request from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make a statement about the allocation of Opposition days, because I understand that there is to be a split between the Militant party in the House and the Labour party? Has there been any request from the Leader of the House to make a statement to you?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no request for a statement. May we now return to badgers?

Mr. Roy Hughes: The last time that we discussed the Badgers Bill in the House, there were interruptions caused by the Gulf crisis.
I hope that the Bill will receive its Royal Assent. It will protect those wonderful creatures and their setts. I look forward to its implementation in three months or so.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the way in which he has conducted the negotiations on the Bill. I am grateful to him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). He would have appreciated those comments, but sadly he has been called away from the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes have worked extremely hard to achieve today's compromise. I appreciate that those who feel strongly about the protection of badgers and who wanted to see the Bill passed in its original form may feel that it is less than what they set out to achieve. On the other hand, those of us who represent country interests

and country sports also have strong views about the effect of the Bill on the activities of sportsmen, conservationists, farmers and those who have to live in the countryside.
I believe that the compromise will satisfy all parties. It will strengthen the hand of the law enforcer against those despicable people who take badgers for baiting. We were all united on that purpose. I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached the point where I am sure that we will be able to accept it. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make that point. It was important to put it on the record, although I appreciate that it was not strictly in order as we are considering a small group of Lords amendments.
The amendments are mostly concerned with stopping and the need of those who hunt foxes to stop up badger setts to prevent foxes from entering them. We had long debates and discussions about the best way to achieve that to the maximum advantage of the badger and the fox hunter to ensure that fox hunters and farmers—particularly in Wales—can control foxes. The hon. Member for Newport, East is extremely sympathetic to the needs of Welsh farmers who would have found it almost impossible to control foxes which ravaged flocks of lambs had the Bill not been amended in this way. I welcome the fact that earths can be stopped in the way set out in clause 3, as amended.
I want to explain how we arrived at amendment No. 5, which allows earth stopping to be carried out the night before the day of a hunt. It was originally suggested that stopping should be carried out on the day of the hunt. I know that the hon. Member for Newport, East was a little aggrieved that the amendment was included when it did not appear to have been fully discussed and agreed. I offer him our apologies for that. I can assure him that that was not intended. Lord Mancroft had discussed the matter with Lord Houghton and they appeared to reach an agreement, which unfortunately did not hold.
None the less, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not inhibit the value of his Bill. I am sure that it will not make it any more difficult to control badger baiters and those who unlawfully dig for badgers and attempt to get at them for unlawful purposes. Having been amended in this way, the Bill will be invaluable for the proper practice of earth stopping.
As the House will be aware, roughly speaking, the Bill now states that earths can be stopped on the day of the hunt with bundles of twigs and they can be stopped the night before using loose material—usually a loose filling of earth. That is a very sensible agreement. If twigs and sticks had been used to stop an earth the night before, the badger would not have been able to move them, and it might have been stuck for rather longer than anyone would want to see it stuck in the event of the earth being occupied, or if it was out and wanted to return home. As loose earth is to be used, and as badgers are extremely formidable diggers, I am sure that, if a badger is caught by earth stopping that has been properly carried out the night before, it will be able to dig itself out.
In the countryside, as a result of changing ways, there is a substantial shortage of people who are experienced in earth stopping and are prepared to stop earths for a hunt. Therefore, there would have been an enormous strain on the resources of a hunt had the time limit for stopping remained the day of the hunt. It would have been too much to ask one or two earth stoppers to stop all the earths and setts during that time. Under such a time limit, stopping


could not have been carried out properly. It was therefore very important that an amendment was included in the Bill to ensure that the earth stopper can fill the entrances to the earths and setts as necessary, and that that is done properly. That is as important for the animal as it is for the earth stopper.
I very much welcome clause 3, as amended. It will fulfil the purposes of those who introduced the Bill and those of us who sought to adjust it to the needs of those living in the countryside. I welcome the Lords amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for his efforts. In the last Session of this Parliament, I tried to be the kind of go-between that the hon. Gentleman has found himself having more time-consumingly to be. I remember the almost extraordinary scenes when I tried to negotiate a compromise form of wording for the badgers legislation then introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Upstairs in Committee, manuscript amendments were whistling about the Committee Room to and from advisers and civil servants. Any hon. Member trespassing with the intention of legislating on this matter knew in advance that he or she was entering what might be called a countryside minefield. The prospect of the Bill emerging unscathed is therefore extremely welcome.
I have three comments about the different amendments in the group. First, it is perfectly proper to debate the definition of the sorts of material that can be used temporarily to stop sett entrances to prevent foxes from entering them during hunts. Amendment No. 4 changes the terminology from "clean loose" to "untainted", which seems generally acceptable.
My second point is more controversial. The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said that amendment No. 5 had been the subject of some sort of ambush in the other place—I do not mean that pejoratively. The amendment was tabled at a late stage to change the deadline for the stopping up from the day of the hunt in question to the middle of the day preceding the day of the hunt. I know that that caused some people some concern, because it obviously extends the period during which the sett is unavailable to the badger and can be interfered with in other ways. It would have been better if we could have introduced provisions to apply only on the day of the hunt. We shall have to watch the way in which the provisions are implemented, to ensure that there is no abuse.
I can understand the logic of saying that if those of us who are legislators accept the principle of stopping up in connection with fox hunting, it is better to do that on the day before the hunt, rather than risk it being done early on the morning of the hunt, because stopping up that is carried out in haste in the morning might be worse and more destructive for the sett than work that is carried out more carefully on the day before. On behalf of those who are keen to give the maximum protection to setts, I stress that our acceptance of that logic is not to be taken as a sign that we are giving people a licence to do anything other than the law permits.
My third point relates to who has the authority over that activity. Amendment No. 7 expands the definition of those who have that authority from the current definition given in clause 3, which refers to

the person is so doing with the consent of the landowner and is authorised by a Hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association who shall keep a register of all such persons.
The amendment broadens that definition to include those who are recognised by the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs. That is to ensure that, in different parts of the country, other categories of people can be included on the register.
I turn now to a point that we debated last year, both in Committee and in the Chamber, and which we have debated again this year. I refer to the principle that a responsible public body, which is recognised by everybody, should keep the register. That would ensure accountability, and nobody could then say, "I have been given permission to do that," without there being some provision for tracking that person's identity and authority. It is important that all stopping-up activities can be checked and authorised.
Finally, this is the second private Member's Bill that we have considered this morning and, like the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, the Badgers Bill is welcome. However, it is an anomaly of the British administrative system that different Ministers are responsible for those two Bills. Naturally, I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) to the Treasury Bench. However, when we discussed the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, the relevant Department was the Department of the Environment. Having moved to a discussion of badgers, which one might think is equally a matter relating to wildlife and the countryside, we find that a Home Office Minister is put in charge. That suggests that there might be scope for a little reform in the definition of ministerial responsibilities.
My party certainly thinks that that is needed, and I hope that the Government will contemplate that before the next election. Perhaps the Tory manifesto—and equally the Labour manifesto—might suggest linking animal and nature issues in one Department. To be honest, I do not think that the Home Office would mind geting rid of its responsibility for animals, as they have caused it a fair amount of trouble in recent months.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I begin by apologising to the House. As a result of leaving the Chamber for a few minutes to attend an important meeting outside, I regret that I did not realise that the debate on the second group of amendments had begun, so I am afraid that I speak having committed a discourtesy to those hon. Members who have already spoken.
My comments about this group of amendments reflect the core of my reservations about the Bill and its predecessors. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on having brought his Bill so far. I know only too well the difficulties of getting a private Member's Bill on to the statute book and I very much welcome his Bill.
Like all my colleagues, over the years I have received a good deal of correspondence from constituents who have been keen to do something to assist the cause of badgers. I have always warmly supported that cause, but with one


reservation which I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, as I said, I am delighted that the Bill will soon be on the statute book.
Before turning to the points that cause me particular concern, I must advise the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he is not alone in being mystified by the intricacies of ministerial responsibilities for matters relating to animals, wildlife and the countryside. When I served at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for a time I was the Minister with responsibility for dogs. It was during that period that the Department gave up its responsibility for dogs—with a good deal of relief. I have a suspicion that in the four years since I have left the Department, my two successors have breathed a great sigh of relief that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer deals with dogs and that that responsibility has been passed to the Home Office which, I am sure, is much better able to deal with it. That is certainly the argument that I used at the time.
My great reservation about the Bill is that not only is it trying to help badgers, which I am sure is what we all want, but at the same time it does not want the control of foxes in certain parts of the country, such as my constituency, to be made more difficult. My constituency contains most of the southern parts of the English Lake district—I think that it is the most beautiful part of the British Isles. People visit it to enjoy its wonderful scenery and amenities. One of the things that they like to see are the sheep grazing on the fells and mountains. Not enough people realise that if it were not for a continual, hard and tough policy of controlling foxes on those fells and mountains, sheep farming would be almost impossible there. The hon. Member for Newport, East knows Wales well and will be aware that the successful farming of sheep on mountainous land depends entirely on controlling foxes which can cause the most dreadful, savage and cruel depredations in the spring. It is almost entirely because of the need to protect sheep on the fells—lambs especially —from foxes that we have fell packs. They carry out the essential job of controlling foxes and making sheep farming possible.
If I were to launch into a dissertation on the current problems of sheep farming on the fells, you might say to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order. That being so, I shall merely say that sheep farming in mountainous areas has never been more difficult in my lifetime, despite the literally hundreds of millions of pounds being poured by the European Community and by the Government into the support of upland farms.
Only two weeks ago I had the great pleasure of attending a meeting that was organised by National Trust tenants in Great Langdale in my constituency. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was kind enough to attend, and she made an excellent speech. It was obvious, however, that great difficulties were being experienced in controlling foxes.
The hon. Member for Newport, East knows that I am concerned that controlling badgers under the welcome provisions of the Bill might mean that controlling foxes in upland areas will become a good deal more difficult. That brings me to Lords amendment No. 7. I am delighted that the amendment, if agreed to, will extend the provisions of the Bill as it stands to include the Association of Masters

of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs. I am not so concerned about harriers and beagles, although harrier packs in the Lake district—certainly the Lunesdale harriers—do an extremely helpful job in controlling foxes.
There is no following of footpacks by people on horses because the terrain in the area which I represent is much too difficult. There are footpacks throughout the Lake district and it is essential that the position of the Central Committee of Fell Packs is fully recognised in the Bill. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newport, East has agreed to include the provisions of amendment No. 7 in the Bill.
I told the hon. Member for Newport, East a few moments ago that I would give him an example of the problem that is caused by foxes that comes from Wales. I remember being told about 30 years ago of a situation that arose during the second world war when the huntsman of a footpack in west Wales was called up for military service. The pack of hounds had to be dispersed. The rise in the fox population on the mountains in west Wales became so great, and their ravages of lambs so great, that they had a significant impact on the production of food. That was especially important during the war, when a large part of the nation's food was being delivered by convoys, which were being attacked all the time by U-boats.
I understand that it became almost impossible to pursue sheep farming on the mountains of west Wales. It became necessary to release the huntsman from the armed services so that he could resume his role and control the fox population and so allow the farming systems in the area to make their proper contribution to the production of food. That work was regarded as much more important than the work that he would have undertaken if he had remained in the Army. That is a clear example from west Wales of the essential need to control foxes. That can be done only by hunting, and the only way in which they can be hunted is by footpacks. As I said, there is no question of people following on horses.
The control of foxes is essential if we are to maintain the beauty of the uplands. If sheep farming were to be made impossible in upland areas, the first people to complain would be those who go to enjoy the beauty of areas such as the Lake district and the Welsh mountains.
I am extremely pleased that a good deal of care has gone into amending the Bill. I hope that it will not make it more difficult in any way for upland farmers to earn a living at a time of great economic difficulty. Despite massive subsidies, they are finding life extremely difficult. I thank the hon. Member for Newport, East for being big enough to include the amendments in the Bill, which I think is an infinitely better measure as a consequence.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), although we have rather different views of foxes. I take the view that the fox is one of nature's entrepreneurs. It amazes me that Conservative Members, who have such fondness for the entrepreneur, should detest an entrepreneur in its natural form.
I shall not deny that the fox occasionally takes a sickly lamb, but the fox's role is more that of the scavenger of the dead lamb and the afterbirth than the taker of healthy lambs. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr.


Carlile) was representing the Liberal Democrats at an earlier stage in the Bill's progress, he was as enthusiastic as Conservative Members about the need to control foxes. He listed and categorised the massive destruction of lambs and sheep in his constituency. I observed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had probably eaten more sheep than the foxes in his constituency.
In the debate in which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery spoke, I made the suggestion—one or two Conservative Members seemed to approve of the idea— that it would be desirable to have a scientific appraisal of the effect of foxes upon the sheep and lamb population on these islands. There are sufficient experts in the public employ, whether in the Home Office or in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to carry out such a survey. I know that they would readily do so.
I should be interested to receive the results of such a survey, whichever way they went, for they would add to the body of desirable knowledge. A survey should assess whether the fox is as damaging to sheep farming and the interests of the sheep farmer as many suggest. I suspect that a useful excuse is being employed to justify hunting. I do not want to enter into the argument about fox hunting—

Mr. Jopling: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not agree with a word of it. I know that he spends quite a lot of time in the Lake district, and I suggest that he should contact some of the hunts. If he takes up that suggestion, he will find that it is quite a regular happening for farmers from one part of the Lake district to telephone a hunt secretary or huntsman and say, "We are losing an awful lot of lambs. Please bring the hunt over and see if you can reduce the number of foxes."

Mr. Hardy: I am aware of that. I am aware also that studies in some areas do not necessarily confirm the right hon. Gentleman's view. That is why I said in the earlier debate to which I referred that it would be desirable if a proper study were undertaken. I hope that the Minister will take note of my suggestion. I am not suggesting that what the right hon. Gentleman has described does not happen, but I think that the scale of the problem is debatable. Surely it is a jolly good idea to put the facts on the record.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsay (Mr. Hughes) suggested that a Minister should be made responsible for these matters. With privatisation and the transferring of responsibility to agencies, there is a good case for removing a large number of Ministers. Perhaps the Home Office Minister would care to act upon that suggestion, as any Minister undertaking that responsibility should not be included in that large number of Ministers who should be removed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is an argument, which has currency not just among my colleagues, that there should be an animal protection agency or something similar, charged with the statutory responsibility of looking after animals welfare. Perhaps that would save some Ministers some of their work, and some of the Government some of their embarrassment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) realises that it would not be appropriate to develop that argument while discussing this group of amendments.

Mr. Hardy: I would not wish to waste time on that argument, because I am not overly keen on agencies. I want Ministers to have responsibility. I hope that the Minister accepts that, within that responsibility, enlightenment and a proper factual assessment—which has been the subject of much debate—are desirable.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is grateful for the tribute paid to him by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). However, my hon. Friend did not exactly enthuse about the amendments; he accepted them out of political realism, because he knew that otherwise the Bill would not succeed. I agree with my hon. Friend's approach, but it is important that we make it clear that the amendments have not been greeted with great enthusiasm.
Lords amendment No. 7 refers to the keeping of a register. Over the past few years, the Government have spent a great deal of money ensuring that those in employment were not allowed to claim social security benefits. In South Yorkshire not long ago, a small army of snoopers spend a great deal of time observing beaters on a shoot. They were all unemployed people who were being gainfully employed on that day's shoot. I suspect that the masters of foxhounds may not be aware how, in certain rural areas, people seek to supplement their relatively low incomes.
Given the reduction in employment in rural areas, one or two of the folk employed as earth stoppers may be dependent upon social security income. I should hate to think that the hunts would be embarrassed when they discovered that they were accessories to an event that Conservative Members regard as far more serious than extensive tax evasion. Given the real enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the amendments, I thought it worth making that point. We shall see how matters unfold.
As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East had no alternative but to accept the amendments. I hope—I am sure that Conservative Members also hope —that they will not so weaken the Bill that, in another two or three years, we will have to find yet another opportunity to add to the catalogue of efforts to ensure the protection of badgers.
It is a great pity that the 1973 Act, which I took through the House, was imperfect. I ensured as much protection for the badger as I could at that time, but the Act had a loophole that has been exploited by irresponsible, barbarous and evil people. I hope that this Bill will close the loophole and ensure that the protection of badgers is as comprehensive as all hon. Members want it to be.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we all hope that the Bill will be effective. However, I caution him that we must, as in all matters, realise the limitations of what we can do in this House. We can legislate against murder, and most people will not commit that crime—but there will always be one or two people who will. I hope that we will not panic when one or two people slip through the net provided by this


Bill. There must be a balance between what we can effectively achieve and what must be left to the discretion of the public.

Mr. Hardy: I accept the hon. Gentleman's realistic view. Indeed, about 12 years ago I reminded the House that we could not station a police officer by every badger sett, by every endangered plant or by every bird's nest. That is why I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East paid tribute to the voluntary societies, which can help in the processes of education. That is just as important as legislation.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I came into the Chamber when I realised that the hon. Gentleman—who in other circumstances I call my friend —was speaking. All too often, the media pay attention to something that has gone wrong. The Bill is not as perfect as many of us would have wished, so I hope that the media will focus even on the one or two people who make mistakes that involve the death of these wonderful animals. I hope that the media will not be afraid of exposing them.

Mr. Hardy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has made an appropriate request. I am grateful for his remarks, just as I have long been grateful for his interest in the matter. I am sure that the Bill will make a significant contribution to the protection of badgers.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 4

AMENDMENT OF S. 9 OF BADGERS ACT 1973

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 2, line 32, after ("1990") insert ("or, as respects Scotland, section 19(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972").

Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment clarifies the Scottish position.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 2, line 49, at end insert—
("(j) for the purpose of the preservation, or archaeological investigation, of a monument scheduled under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified.")

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 15.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is an important provision that would ensure that archaeological sites are not endangered. I do not think that there is anything controversial about that.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome the amendment, which is an important provision. It is especially important that there is a licensing system for people to stop badger setts for the purpose of controlling foxes. The system should be properly administered and licences should be made available in appropriate circumstances to appropriately qualified people.
The amendments, which were tabled jointly in the other place by the noble Lord Mancroft and my noble Friend Lord Houghton, clarify and improve the system under which licences may be issued permitting interference with badger setts for the purpose of controlling foxes. The amendments were a response to great concern expressed in another place that the licensing system should be sufficiently practical and sensible to ensure that fox control in upland areas could continue. Hon. Members will be aware that that concern is most relevant to sheep worrying in the upland areas. My noble Friend Lord Swinton moved an amendment which would have given a general licence to landowners, occupiers, and other authorised people to interfere with a badger sett in the spring for the purpose of controlling foxes. However, he withdrew it so that the compromise amendment No. 10 could be agreed, and I am delighted that it was.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the criteria by which licence applications are assessed and granted will be identical for England, Scotland and Wales?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I cannot, because that point is not one which I have considered, but so far as I am aware the criteria are the same. If the hon. Gentleman has any reason to doubt that, we had better discuss the point fairly rapidly, before the Bill progresses any further.
The Bill makes it an offence to enter a terrier into a badger sett. If foxes or rabbits occupy one part of a large sett and the other part is currently used by a badger, the sett will be protected and the foxes or rabbits may not be taken out with the use of a terrier. Similarly, if a fox that has taken lambs runs to ground in a live badger sett, it cannot be got out except under a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture or the equivalent authority in Scotland.
The Bill already makes provision to ensure that under section 9 of the Badger Act 1973, a licence may be granted to allow a person to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry, or any other form of property. However, although livestock is property, wild game and other ground nesting birds are not—so that fox control to protect those birds which in any way interferes with a badger sett would be unlawful and could not be licensed unless the amendments were made.
The Ministry of Agriculture has not been required to issue licences in those circumstances until now because badger setts have not been protected. The licensing system was designed to meet rare situations where farmers wanted to remove a rogue badger, and not to deal with the thousands of farmers and keepers who need to control foxes in or near badger setts. I emphasise the word "near" because it is important that rabbits and foxes near badger setts can be controlled and that people do not put themselves at risk of prosecution because a badger sett is near the place where they are operating.
Although the definition of a badger sett is now much improved, considerable concern remains that persons involved in legitimate fox control would constantly run the risk of prosecution—especially if taking foxes out of places that badgers also occupy, or if badgers live nearby. Such persons would need a licence not so much to interfere with the sett directly but to enable them to operate at all.
Foxes and badgers are becoming more prolific, and although the Ministry of Agriculture indicated that it is


willing to review the issue of licences, it is clear that the only practicable way to ensure that legitimate fox control can continue is to amend the licensing procedure so that the grounds on which licences are issued are clear.
The amendments will allow the Ministry and its Scottish equivalent, or the Nature Conservancy Council, to issue a licence to permit a person, but not organisations, to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of controlling foxes in order to protect livestock, game and wildlife. Without the amendments, licences would have to be applied for under the existing provisions in section 9. The condition of such a licence—to prevent serious damage to property—means that, in each case, the applicant would have to go to great lengths to show that foxes are causing serious damage to his lambs. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) queried the extent of that damage, but my hon. Friends and I are sure that lamb damage is done by foxes throughout the country.

Mr. Tony Banks: How will the Ministry or the Nature Conservancy Council establish the bona fides of licence applications? Will they simply take the word of the landowner, or will they make an on-site inspection themselves?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is a matter of concern to us all that those who are issued with licences are fit and proper persons to receive them. I will deal with that point later.
I had three lambs taken from the park around my house this spring, undoubtedly by foxes. We found the head of one lamb, but the carcase had been entirely removed. That is a feature of fox taking—it is not how dogs behave, or any other predator.

Mr. Tony Banks: Or one of the hon. Gentleman's hungry constituents.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: A hungry constituent would have to walk a few miles to reach the farm to which I am referring. In any event, I am sure that my constituents are extremely confident that the Government's economic policies will ensure that they do not go hungry.

Mr. Allen McKay: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) accepts that a fox sometimes takes a lamb, but that the extent of that damage is overstated. He made the point that he would welcome an inquiry to establish the true facts.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept that that is what the hon. Member for Wentworth said, and I did not mean to misrepresent him. I merely stated that the hon. Gentleman queried the contention that lamb damage is a significant factor in the need for fox control.
It is all very well considering fox damage in relation to a big area and a large number of sheep, but it is usually a particular fox that is doing the damage in one area. It is of no comfort to the wretched farmer whose sheep are the target for that fox if 20 neighbouring farmers experience no such trouble. The killing of 20 or 30 lambs out of a population of 500 or 600, or of 2,000 or 3,000 may not be considered significant—but it is, if the losses are suffered by one farmer.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that foxes kill not only sheep but other animals—particularly birds such

as geese? One of my constituents has an ornamental lake which provides a home for several species of extremely valuable geese—some of which are worth more than £200 apiece. This nesting season, nine separate geese on their nests were destroyed by foxes, one by one, with the result that only one goose managed to bring a litter on. Despite my constituent's best endeavours to secure the area against foxes, with the erection of fences and all sorts of other ingenious measures to prevent the foxes from gaining access, they managed to do so every time, causing a great amount of damage and financial loss.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is right in saying that poultry in particular are a target for foxes, and it also needs to be emphasised that foxes are one of the animals that kill for fun. When they break into a poultry run, they not only take two or three chickens or geese to satisfy their hunger but kill as many as they can for the sheer joy and pleasure of doing so. The public are mistaken if they believe that foxes are poor little animals that only kill to feed themselves as necessary. Much of the killing done by foxes of lambs, poultry and other animals is for pleasure —and in much larger numbers than is necessary for survival.
A licence granted under the amendments would not permit the killing, injuring or taking of badgers, but the licensing authority is empowered to lay down any conditions as to how the sett may be interfered with, and must specify the area to which the licence applies. The key difference between the amendments under consideration and that of my noble Friend Lord Swinton is that they leave the issuing of licences to the discretion of the licensing authority, whereas my noble Friend's amendments would have made their issuing compulsory but set down conditions to ensure that badgers were not harmed and would have enabled licensing authority to refuse a licence to unsuitable people. Amendment No. 10 states that no licence issued under the Badgers Act 1973 shall be "unreasonably withheld or revoked".
Speaking for the Government on Report in another place, Lord Astor said that he expected that a condition of the licence would be that the person authorised should take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to a badger. The licence might also specify what may or may not be done to a badger sett—for example, the sett should not be destroyed and any accidental damage to it should be rectified as soon as possible. We all agree that badger setts should be fully protected from damage during these operations.
I accept that licences should specify that minimal damage be caused to setts and that the least possible disturbance be caused to badgers. But we should not make the conditions so restrictive or unrealistic as to make the job of fox control impossible. Inevitably fox control in badger setts will cause some disturbance, which is why a licence is necessary in the first place, but it does not harm badgers when undertaken responsibly. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly said, it is essential that only the right people be issued with these licences and that the terms and conditions in them be fulfilled.
Fox control has not just been invented; it will happen in future, it is happening now, and it has happened for centuries. It always has been and it will remain an essential part of country life. Foxes and badgers are on the increase in upland areas and throughout large parts of the country.
They are not threatened species. There are many thousands of both types of animal in the countryside and I sincerely hope that they will continue to flourish. But it is a fact that both foxes and badgers—I emphasise the latter—thrive best in the best hunting conditions because the balance of nature is maintained by those with an interest in country sport and in the conservation of the countryside, who want to ensure that there is a good supply of wildlife but not in such quantities as to throw out of balance the other species in an area. That applies especially to foxes, but also to kites, eagles and buzzards. It is important that they be preserved but also that they do not grow to such numbers as might threaten other species. The role of the licence is important in the keeping of this balance.
It should be emphasised that licences are not necessarily sought to dig for foxes in what are obviously active badger setts, although that may be necessary. Licences are needed as much to ensure that legitimate people engaged in fox control are not prosecuted if, for instance, they enter terriers into a large area with badgers at one end and foxes or rabbits at the other. It is not only the badger sett but the operations that are necessary around it which render the amendments so necessary.

Mr. Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend said earlier that licences would be issued to individuals but not to corporate bodies. Will they be issued to individuals on behalf of such bodies so that it will be easier to prosecute just one person?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I confess that I cannot answer that question. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) may be able to enlighten my hon. Friend. I should have thought that it must have to do with ensuring that the person participating in the activity is the licensed person so that it is easier to keep tabs on him and ensure that he operates properly under the terms of the licence.
Who should be licensed? This is a fairly thorny problem, and one which hon. Members on both sides of the House will watch closely. It is no more in the interests of the sporting community than of other participants in the debate that people who are not fit and proper should be given licences, because they will give us all a bad name if they abuse their privilege.
There is general agreement that certain persons should not be granted licences—for instance, people convicted of offences against badgers or other wildlife. However, the British Field Sports Society, of which I am chairman, is extremely anxious that reputable people engaged in fox control should be able to obtain licences. Professional gamekeepers, hunt servants and members of fox destruction societies must be able to obtain licences provided that they are fit and proper people to hold them. I know that the Government have accepted that idea. Lord Astor told the other place that we need to be confident that anyone authorised to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of fox control is suitable and responsible, and that would include gamekeepers, farmers, hunts, fox destruction organisations and any other suitable people. It is far more sensible to license these individuals for a particular area than to license the individual farmer or occupier who

may be suffering problems caused by foxes. The administrative problems involved in issuing licences and vetting applicants must be kept within reasonable bounds.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has returned, because I come now to the subject about which he asked me. To insist on every individual occupier being the holder of a licence would lead to far too many licences. A farmer or occupier may not want to do the job himself and the badger sett in or near which the fox has taken refuge may not even be on his own land. It therefore makes every kind of sense that the person charged with the job of removing the fox from the badger sett or from the area of the badger sett should hold the licence.
How long should licences be issued for? As with shotgun licences and other forms of licence, the issuing of these licences must not create a huge administrative burden. I see no reason why a licence should be limited to a short time. The hon. Member for Newport, West will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that the time has been specified, so it will be up to the authorities concerned, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, to decide the length of validity of the licences, and we shall all want to put our own views on the matter.

Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having left the Chamber for a few moments—a grateful constituent has just brought me a sheep's head—but I was wondering whether he had told the House while I was away how the licences will be operated. Will there be a ministerial visit or a visit by the Nature Conservancy Council, or will a licence just be granted on the say-so of the applicant?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That, too, is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture. The Bill does not specify how this will be managed. Like others, I wonder whether it is right that responsibility for all these activities to do with animals should be so diffusely held. It is sad that no Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture is here today to help my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who will give us the Government's view. I do not know whether she knows what her colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture have in mind. No doubt she will enlighten us in a moment, but we shall have to explore the matter thoroughly. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will have strong views to put to the Ministry, as will I.
I hope that we may say that we have reached common ground at least in so far as believing that it should be administratively simple to issue licences and to enable fit and proper people to hold them. We should not put too great a burden on the Ministry or on the NCC. The process must be monitored, however, to ensure that unfit people do not hold licences.
It is important that when the need for licences cannot be foreseen they can be granted speedily. That will remain at the discretion of the licence authorities. A rogue fox could cause serious lamb losses or damage to ground nesting birds during a delay of a few weeks. Once we know that a fox is operating in a given area he is likely to come back and do a great deal more damage unless he is killed. It is essential, therefore, that if there is a badger sett somewhere in the area, destruction of the fox is carried out speedily before too much damage is done to the farmer's


flock. I do not think that that has been decided yet. I am concerned that we should ensure that licences are issued speedily, where appropriate.
In most cases, gamekeepers, members of fox destruction societies and hunt staff will need a general licence in advance of a problem with a fox in or near a badger sett. The licences must run for a reasonable period— I should have thought at least on an annual basis. In the other place Lord Astor was able to confirm that licences would be issued in advance, and for a prolonged period, where regular fox control, for protection, may risk occasional interference with badger setts. I hope that such licences will be issued to the right people.
I am also a little concerned about the arrangements between licensing authorities. The Bill does not make it clear whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be the authority or whether, in given areas, it will be the Nature Conservancy Council. Before the Bill is on the statute book the Government should provide greater definition so that that point can be clarified.

Dr. Godman: Amendment No. 15 states that
(6) A licence under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked".
Could it not be that a person who feels that his application is entirely genuine has his application rejected and that he is then in a position to argue that it has been unreasonably withheld? Where would he take his case? Would there be an appeals system?

12 noon

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As the law stands, if I understand it correctly, if there is a provision that the Government may not act in a certain way but they do, there is recourse to the courts. How simple it would be to invoke that procedure I do not know, in the light of the generalities with which we have been dealing. We shall need to look closely at that point. It may be in everyone's interest that an arbitration system should be established. Nothing in the Bill would prevent that from being done, if the Government felt it to be appropriate. As an ex-practising lawyer, I am well aware of both the expense and the delay that can result from having to apply to the courts in such instances. I should much prefer an arbitration panel to decide at first instance whether a person had been unreasonably dealt with. If the arbitrator felt that that person had been unreasonably dealt with, that would be a much simpler, swifter and cheaper procedure, which I should welcome.
There is the question of who is to be the licensing authority, and in what circumstances. The position is not yet entirely satisfactory. We are not clear how licensing will work. None the less, I welcome these clauses, as amended. I am sure that they will set up a structure that can resolve these matters, with the assistance of the Minister. We shall have to get together to ensure that the Minister is aware of the needs of those who desire licences and of those who are rightly anxious that the wrong people should be prevented from obtaining them. A balance will have to be established to ensure that only those people who operate properly are allowed to have licences, and that when they are operating properly they should be allowed to get their licences without undue hindrance or difficulty and certainly not be refused without good grounds for doing so.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) have all mentioned the damage that is caused by foxes in the countryside. We heard the touching story of the geese of a constituent of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West. I was the proud possessor of two geese at one time. They were bought for me. Unfortunately, Mrs. Banks imposed a block on them being brought home to my small garden in Forest Gate, on the ground that she thought that they were rather bad-tempered and frightening beasts. While they were being kept my two lovely geese were taken—it was alleged at the time, by badgers. I do not know who is telling the truth, but I do not bear badgers any ill will because they took my two geese. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West obviously feels upset about foxes, even though the geese he cited were not his.
I am not sure about the extent to which anecdotal evidence is admissible about fox damage. I accept that some damage is caused by foxes, but until there is a far more accurate scientific assessment, we are left with anecdotal arguments, which do not seem to be the best basis for making good legislation. I understand that a fox's diet is predominantly small rodents. I think that foxes are one of the greatest controllers of rats in the country. Foxes eat worms, carrion, frogs and insects. No doubt they take a sickly lamb from time to time, but that is nature's way of dealing with sick animals.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I think that the hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I told the House that I lost three lambs from my park because of foxes. There is nothing anecdotal about that. It is factual. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication that foxes normally eat insects, worms and frogs and occasionally sickly lambs. The lambs that were taken from my park were perfectly healthy—until they were eaten by the fox.

Mr. Banks: I was in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman told the sad tale about the three lambs that he had lost. He said that all that was left was a severed head. Either someone was using a lamb for a rehearsal for "The Godfather", or one of his hungrier constituents may have decided to consume the carcase. I do not intend to reduce this to a Committee debate, but to what extent was the hon. Gentleman aware of the health of those lambs? He may say that they were bouncing around, as frisky as ever, and just waiting to end up on a plate with some new potatoes and mint sauce, but they may have been slightly sickly and that was why the fox took them.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The lambs were inspected daily. They were frisky, romping about and perfectly healthy until they were eaten. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman's hungry constituents were therefore unable to come along and purchase them.

Mr. Banks: I still maintain that it may have been my constituents who took them. That is something that my constituents are wont to do from time to time. A little bit of poaching from the hon. Gentleman, since he can afford it, is not something that I would condemn unqualifiedly in this House. Those lambs, in the short term, would probably have been dead, anyway. Instead of being


consumed by foxes, they would undoubtedly have been consumed by the hon. Member for Upminister in perhaps more salubrious surroundings than a field.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that foxes also have the right to live. The fox is indigenous to this country. There have been times when foxes have been introduced into certain areas for fox hunters. Under the circumstances, one is being harsh on foxes. They have the right to exist. Nature maintains a certain balance. We are constantly interfering with that balance. I merely wanted to say a word on their behalf, and in defence of foxes, since few hon. Members are prepared to defend them. I am. I am sure that, if they were able to vote, they would all vote for me in Newham, North-West.
On this occasion, I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Upminster about amendments Nos. 13 and 15 on licensing. We share his concern, but perhaps for completely different reasons. Who knows? I have some questions for the Minister, although I understand her difficulties. Amendment No. 13 mentions every Department but hers, the Home Department. [Interruption.] The sartorial wear of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is getting better and better. He is wearing a very snazzy shirt. I am surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not remember Mr. Speaker's ruling about hon. Members, however eminent, walking into this place without their jackets. However, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale did—as did the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, the epitome of sartorial elegance.

Mr. Bellingham: rose—

Mr. Banks: No doubt the hon. Gentleman intends to make one of his telling points.

Mr. Bellingham: Although the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is always immaculately dressed, his hair is always well groomed and he is a picture of sartorial elegance, some of his colleagues flout Mr. Speaker's ruling by coming into the Chamber wearing trainers and no ties and looking like soccer hooligans. Will he comment on how his colleagues are normally dressed on a Tuesday or Thursday in the middle of summer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not be diverted from the amendments.

Mr. Banks: Some of my best friends are soccer hooligans; it was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman to make that point.
I share some of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Upminster. The Minister is the only Minister who does not appear to have responsibility, so it is unfortunate that she must reply to the debate. No Minister from Scotland, Wales, MAFF, or, on behalf of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Department of the Environment, is here to reply. I am aware of the Minister's competence, so no doubt she will be able to answer my questions.
I am concerned about the process by which applications for licences will be made. Will someone have to produce documentary or filmed evidence? Will a MAFF official have to make a physical inspection before granting a licence? I am distrustful of MAFF and of its attitude to

badgers. Many people at the Ministry are still smarting about being made to cease gassing badgers in order to eliminate bovine tuberculosis. Plenty of evidence from around the world showed that badgers were not a major contributory factor in the spread of bovine TB. That problem seems to have disappeared and to have been replaced by other problems such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. At least no one said that badgers were responsible for that.
I distrust MAFF, so I want to know how the process will operate. It would be preposterous if someone were granted a licence because they were a farm owner or a trustworthy type of fellow who hunted for lambs' heads with the hon. Member for Upminster. That seems to be too slack. I should like to know what specific proposals will be made for licence applications.
The hon. Member for Upminster said that the licence application was administratively simple. There is a difference between administratively simple and wholly permissive. It worries me that in the attempt to make applications administratively simple, they will be granted almost as soon as they are made. Lords amendment No. 15 says that a licence
shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked.
The hon. Member for Upminster, among his many talents, is not only a farmer but a lawyer. From time to time, he is able to squeeze in being a Member of Parliament—and a good one at that. He knows better than I do what is reasonable and has probably earned a lot of money from arguing it. I do not like such a word to appear in legislation because it is too open and allows too many lawyers to make too many fat fees.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has commented on my activities, so perhaps I should put the record straight. I have not practised as a lawyer since I became an hon. Member. His remarks, are therefore not well founded.

Mr. Banks: Many defendants are probably grateful for that.
One must ask about reasonableness and the process. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has accepted the Lords amendments. In many respects, he had no choice because of the problems that are associated with getting a Bill on to the statute book. He has done wonderfully well—far better than I did, but he is more reasonable than I am, which no doubt assisted him.
I am unhappy about the Lords amendments, and in normal circumstances I would have voted against them. On this occasion, I cannot do so, but I believe that we shall have to return to this subject when we try to toughen the badger setts legislation.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief intervention at this late stage of the Bill, which is a good measure in so far as it has tightened provisions to safeguard badgers and has met some of the difficult objections.
I declare an interest as the owner of a considerable badger sett that is just behind my house. If anecdotal evidence is necessary, not so many weeks ago I was amused and enjoyed seeing four pairs of sharp little eyes pointing out of the sett that belonged not to badgers but to fox cubs. Frequently, the sett behind my house is occupied by one or the other.
12.15 pm
I have been asked to intervene to raise a problem that upsets and worries a number of my constituents—the urban badger sett. Those who live near such a sett are extremely worried about the damage that badgers cause. When legislation to protect the badger was introduced a few years ago, I took much trouble to find out how I could help my constituents, whose allotments, gardens and vegetables were being chewed up by badgers.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to help by catching some of the badgers and releasing them in a part of the country where there was a sett and where they could do no damage to my constituents' gardens and allotments. Will that still be possible under the licensing system?
I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the problem. My constituents are worried about a large urban badger sett in a part of my constituency. Will MAFF officials or experts be able to capture some of those badgers, which have become prolific this year, and remove them to another area of the country where they will do no harm? Under the terms of the Bill, is that regarded as harmful to the badger or will it still be possible to license such activity?
Once badgers have been removed, their setts are liable to be taken over by rabbits, which is a nuisance, but there are means of overcoming that problem.
I received a deputation in my constituency of genuinely desperate people who wanted to strengthen the law to safeguard badgers against the detestable crime of badger baiting, which no one has time for. A few years ago, badgers in my constituency were transported elsewhere, but will it still be legitimate to do so under the licensing system proposed in the amendment?

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. A number of my young constituents urged me to be here this morning to support the Bill.
I should like to put a couple of questions to the Minister about my concerns on the issuing of licences. I asked the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) some questions about the amendments. As the Minister will know, they refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland and/or the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland being the licensors. Such issues are important and I ask the Minister to impress upon the different Departments the need for identical criteria under which licence applications are assessed, granted or rejected. Unlike the hon. Member for Upminster, I am not a lawyer. I readily acknowledge that we have two legal systems—the English and the Scottish—but nevertheless it is essential that the criteria for assessing such licence applications are identical.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: At the moment, it seems that that is still in the melting pot, as neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor its Scottish counterpart has made any decisions about the criteria that are to be applied. I endorse what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said. It is important that the criteria for both parts of the United Kingdom are identical.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his fine intervention. If a Scottish applicant were rejected because of certain criteria that do not apply in the assessment of English or Welsh licences, he or she would have a pretty powerful case for appealing against such a

decision. I know that the Minister cannot answer on behalf of her Scottish ministerial colleagues, but I should be grateful if she would make my remarks known to them in her characteristically courteous way.
I now deal with the issue of "a suitable person". Again, when referring to those who should be excluded from holding licences, the hon. Member for Upminster mentioned people who have criminal records, perhaps those who have convictions for poaching and especially for poaching with vicious traps. I should have thought that such a person would be rejected out of hand.
I hope that the officials who issue licences will be competent in the ways of country living and country activities, because local authorities could have to issue licences under the regulations. Competence is an important issue.
I asked the hon. Member for Upminster some questions about amendment No. 15 regarding the decisions made by officials to withhold or to revoke a licence. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the length of time that a licence would endure. A licence could have to be revoked because of an action committed by the licensee. I presume that such a person would have grounds for an appeal under the amendment and that he or she could claim that the licence had been unreasonably revoked.
In response to an intervention, the hon. Gentleman mentioned an arbitration system. An appeals procedure must be built into the licensing system, but it must not add to the bureaucracy of that system or make it much more cumbersome either to apply for a licence or for the authorities to revoke that licence if the holder has acted improperly. My hon. Friend the Member for Newhatn, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked about what is reasonable. Amendment No. 15 would require that we determine what is unreasonable, which might be even more difficult. The Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and others must work hand in glove when dealing with licensing. The criteria to be satisfied before a licence is granted must be tough. The officials who deal with the granting of licences must be competent in such matters. If possible, the criteria must be identical in each of the three nations. If licences `are revoked or withheld there must be an appeals procedure, but it should not be a cumbersome addition to the system of granting, revoking or withholding licences.

Mr. Jopling: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), I must declare an interest as I own a farm on which there is a badger sett which I have long tried to preserve, sometimes without success. Sometimes it is occupied by rabbits and sometimes by foxes, but I am always glad when the badgers come back.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) agreed with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in doubting whether foxes cause ravages to lambs in upland areas. I confess that I was astonished to hear that two hon. Members doubt that, as it is understood that that is what happens in the Lake district. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West or his hon. Friend have spoken to upland farmers—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Jopling: I shall develop my argument and then I shall give way. One needs only to talk to upland farmers


to hear that when they round up their flocks on the fells, they discover that large numbers of lambs have been savaged by foxes. Their first reaction is to ring the hunt to ask it to do something. The hunts are continually requested to move round the fells and mountainous areas to deal with foxes that are causing problems. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, doubts that, I will be most delighted to facilitate a visit by him to the Lake district. I do not know what he is doing on 8 August. I am the president of the Lake district sheepdog trials which will take place near Windermere and if he would like to come, I can arrange for a large number of farmers to talk to him—

Mr. Bellingham: Have him come and stay.

Mr. Jopling: I shall be glad for him to come and stay if he wishes to do so. It is the 100th celebration this year of the Lake district sheepdog trials. If he wants to come and talk to the farmers I shall be delighted to facilitate.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is the best offer that I have had for a long time. I will accept that offer and a pint of scrumpy, or whatever delightful brew is drunk in the right hon. Gentleman's area, will be imbibed by me as well. I shall have a good day out. He is right. There are not many upland farmers in Newham—indeed, there is not much in the way of uplands. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was that there should be more scientific evidence. If that shows that the damage to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is taking place there must be ways of dealing with it. However, I doubt whether the best way in which to deal with it—if it is as widespread as the right hon. Gentleman suggests—is to bring in the hunt.

Mr. Jopling: The wisdom and the experience of upland farmers in the Lake district is infinitely more compelling than all the scientific evidence that the rather clever chaps in sandals can put together. I recommend the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to talk to farmers so that he hears what happens on the ground.
The amendments will make it easier to control foxes in the areas in which it is absolutely essential to do so. I will not go into all the details about the importance of ensuring that foxes are properly controlled in upland areas, as I made that clear in my previous remarks. However, I welcome Lords amendment No. 11, which I am sure will make it easier to control foxes in the area that I represent where the livelihood of the local population is so dependent on the proper control of foxes.
I should like to address a question to the promoter of the Bill—the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—about Lords amendment No. 13, which deals with who issues licences. The amendment describes two bodies for England, five for Wales and two for Scotland. Will the two bodies decide between themselves who will issue the licences, or will both of them issue licences? I can envisage a situation in which a thoroughly undesirable person with convictions for badger baiting—someone with whom none of us would have any sympathy—hears, as word gets round in the local community, that perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales is an easier touch for a licence than is the Countryside Council for Wales. It is important

that if both bodies are to issue licences, it is made clear that they are using the same criteria. None of us wishes to make it made easy for undesirable people to have licences to do those things. I hope that we can have some clarification on that point.
It was wise of the hon. Member for Newport, East to accept this group of amendments, as they will make the Bill much more acceptable in the areas that I represent where the terms of the Bill have caused some anxiety in the past. I hope that because of the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman, those anxieties can now be put at rest.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I shall try to reassure the House by saying something about the licensing proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said, a new position has been created by the Bill. Because badger setts will be protected under the Bill, licences must be given under the Badgers Act 1973 for the removal of foxes from setts when it is necessary to do so to control the fox population. When the Bill was discussed in another place, a great deal of time was spent on the question of licensing.
A number of hon. Members have asked important questions this morning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) hoped that the criteria would be clearly set out for all the agencies that will issue licences. The Government do not think that that will be a great problem. Because of the doubts that have been expressed about the Bill's implications for farmers, landowners and moorland gamekeepers, I am happy to repeat the Government's assurances on licensing.
The principal problem that has caused concern lies in ensuring that licences are given for legitimate fox control to protect not only sheep but poultry, game and wild birds. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) referred to that point, and the wife of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is worried about geese. Perhaps Forest Gate has become a geese-free or badger-free zone.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is certainly a Tory-free zone.

Mrs. Rumbold: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's wife will be less worried about geese after the discussions that may take place. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) suggested that we find out the facts.
All those who have been involved with the Bill have learnt that foxes often live alongside badger setts. Often it is not easy to tell whether a hole belongs to a fox or a badger, or both. Farmers whose livestock may be threatened by foxes must be able to take swift action to remove them. Because of the anxieties that were expressed in another place about the basis on which licences might be granted, I tell the House that the Government have held meetings with the Bill's sponsors, including those in the other place. We have offered to help in drafting a suitable amendment. I believe that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) should accept this measure as one that is, on the whole, worthy of us all.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have expressed my readiness to accept the new amendment. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will notice that in the amendment we are diversifying control to Wales and Scotland. I do not expect that there will be a problem,


especially in this age of technology and computers. There will be clear records of who is eligible for a licence and who is not.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving that information—as, I am sure, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
I wish to explain how the proposed licensing system will work. In the first place, we will need to be confident that anyone authorised to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of fox control is suitable and responsible—thus, gamekeepers, farmers, fox hunts and destruction organisations would be considered for a licence, but convicted badger diggers would not. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will be glad to hear that and to hear that the consultations which have taken place covered the point which he expressed and that all licences will be issued on a common basis. Local authorities will not issue them. Under Lords amendment No. 13, licences can be issued only by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and conservancy councils. I trust that that news puts to rest one of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
There is also a provision that any licence under the Badgers Act 1973 should not be unreasonably withheld or revoked. Clearly, licensing authorities must act reasonably. We envisage that licences will be issued, in advance and for a long period, where regular fox control for protection may risk occasional interference with a badger sett. We would, of course, retain the right to revoke such a licence if a problem occurred.
I understand the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), because it arises not a million miles from my home, although perhaps not so near to my constituency. I assure my hon. Friend that there are powers in the Badgers Act 1973, as well as in the present Bill, to control urban badgers setts that are causing problems.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister said that, in certain cases where known fox activity occurs regularly, licences will be granted for a lengthy period. She said that there would be a power to revoke, but did not say anything about a power to monitor or about whether the licences would be monitored. I am concerned that, if open-ended licences are granted, all sorts of abuses could occur. There should be a failsafe mechanism.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand that, and we shall certainly register that concern when we put together the criteria for granting licences.
We also envisage assessing in advance of lambing the position of sheep farmers whose flocks are in danger from foxes living in badger setts, so that licences may be issued either in advance or speedily when the need arises. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West have a dispute about that. I shall not enter into it, because I am not well versed in countryside issues. I represent an urban constituency and am therefore more concerned with urban than with rural farms; indeed, I am the proud owner of a particularly attractive urban farm.

Mr. Boscawen: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about urban badger setts. May I perhaps be sent information setting out the provisions in the Bill that would allow the actions of which I spoke to be taken?

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall be happy to furnish my hon. Friend with as much information as possible; I shall ensure that a letter is sent to him on Monday.
Licences will not necessarily be restricted to a single sett. Although they will relate to a specified area, that area could include a number of farms.
It goes without saying that licences granted under the provision would not be for the taking or killing of badgers and a condition of the licence might be that the person authorised should take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to a badger. That is another point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome is concerned. The licence conditions could also specify just what may, or may not, be done to a badger sett.
Under the present Act, there are different licensing authorities for different situations—in some cases, the Agriculture Departments; in others, the Nature Conservancy Councils.
I note the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members about the fact 1 should be dealing with the Bill and with other matters affecting animals as part of my ministerial responsibilities. I shall certainly register the concern expressed about the allocation of responsibilities to the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Departments, although I believe that the Home Office is as good a Department as any to deal with these matters and that on this Bill, as on previous Badgers Bills, we have managed to give the promoters some satisfaction. I therefore note the point about responsibilities lying with a number of agencies, but I am not convinced by the argument.
The principle applying to the new licensing agencies will be set out clearly. The licensing authorities will work together as at present to establish common guidelines for issuing licences. The aim is to develop a system that is simple, straightforward and just. We shall consult interested organisations, including those that have played a considerable part in the discussions about the Bill.
We shall consider which licensing authority will be responsible for different areas of licensing. That will be a matter for consultation. In principle, we believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue licences relating to agricultural land and livestock and that the Nature Conservancy Council will issue licences with regard to wildlife. I should have thought that that was relatively straightforward.

Dr. Godman: Will the licence fee be modest?

Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot comment on that now. It will be a matter for discussion and if the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow wants to raise a point about that, I am sure that he will be able to do so.

Mr. Jopling: As I understood my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, she said that our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue licences in respect of agricultural land, while the conservation bodies will grant them in respect of wildlife. Who would be the licensing authority for a game park,


which seems to encompass neatly both areas? I was thinking of that sort of case when I made the point a few moments ago.

Mrs. Rumbold: One of the benefits of this debate is that those points can be made. We must clearly take note of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and ensure that the responsibility lies with the correct agency. My right hon. Friend made a telling point and we recognise that there will be cases where the areas of responsibility will overlap. There will have to be consultations with the interested parties to decide which licensing authority will issue licences in certain cases.
It is also important to state that the administrative arrangements for licensing must be worked out properly and an amendment has been included, as hon. Members will have noticed, to extend the time to allow the necessary consultation to be conducted over the summer before the Bill comes into force.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked whether visits would be paid to licence applicants. I assure him that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consult interested parties on how licences are issued. In some cases a visit may be necessary, but in others a licence may be issued without a visit. We have yet to finalise the practicalities of that system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) asked whether licences could be issued to individuals or to organisations. That was an interesting question. The answer is that licences would have to be issued to individuals, although they could be issued to named representatives of organisations such as fox destruction societies.
Hon. Members have expressed concerns which I trust that I have answered satisfactorily. The consultations between MAFF, the nature conservancy agencies in England, Scotland and Wales and the interested organisations will lead to satisfactory procedures. This debate has been helpful in identifying concerns that will have been noted by those who will participate in the consultations.
I have just received a note from the people who do not exist and I can inform the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that the licences will be issued without a fee. That may be of great comfort to him.
I congratulate everyone involved in steering the Bill safely through its various stages in this House and in another place. It is to everyone's credit that we have a measure today that can be supported by all sides. That is a good reflection of the spirit of co-operation that has existed throughout the passage of the Bill. Hon. Members have raised points about which they feel strongly, and answers have been given. There has been a great deal of co-operation to ensure that a sensible measure is put on the statute book.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for introducing his Bill and for the climate that he has so skilfully created around it. The success of the Bill is a tribute to the part that has been played by him and his advisers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that so many of my hon. Friends are happy to join me in

that tribute. I must pay tribute also to my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and to various other colleagues for the part that they have played in building the consensus that has now come to fruition.
I know that there has been a lot of debate and quite a bit of hard bargaining behind the scenes, but the achievement is clear for all to see. Finally, and without more ado, I express the Government's view that we are extremely glad that the Bill will soon be on the statute book. Indeed, this Session has been notable for the amount of legislation relating to badgers. This Bill provides increased protection for badgers. The Badgers (Further Protection) Bill will shortly receive Royal Assent and the Criminal Justice Bill contains increased penalties. All round, 1991 has not been a bad year for the badger. Perhaps it could successfully be nominated the Year of the Badger.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 5

AMENDMENT OF S.II OF BADGERS ACT 1973

Lords amendment No. 16, in page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert
("signs indicating current use by a badger").

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Roy Hughes.]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not wish to detain the House, but it is important to mention that it is critical to the success of the Bill that the definition of badger setts should be correct. We have had much debate about the correct definition of a badger sett and I am now satisfied with the Lords amendment, which refers to
signs indicating current use by a badger".
For all the reasons that were expressed earlier, it is clearly important that empty holes, pipes and other places where badgers occasionally live should not be brought within the scope of the Bill or it will become unworkable and many people in the countryside will be unable to pursue their lawful interests. Therefore, I very much welcome the amendment with its satisfactory wording and I am happy to join the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) in recommending it to the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am not happy with the amendment because it weakens the Bill. We have had long arguments about how a badger sett should be defined and about whether someone found interfering with a badger sett could be excused if they said that they had believed that the sett had been vacated. One could make many points about this issue, including the fact that badgers have been known to leave their setts and to return to them later. Members of Parliament are not the only creatures on this planet to have two homes—badgers sometimes have two homes. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) would be a damned sight more sympathetic towards badgers than he has been. On this occasion, he has got what he wanted—a looser definition of a badger sett which, as I have said, is a weakening of the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) says "Come off it" or some such phrase that he has got from Jeeves and Wooster, but I will


not come off it because I believe that the amendment weakens the Bill. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) I must perforce accept it. Unless we do, I doubt whether the hon. Member for Upminster and the forces of darkness on the Government Benches would allow the Bill to proceed. I register my protest, but I must accept the amendment.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to me "and" the forces of darkness, thus dearly differentiating between the two. I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the amendment. He should accept that badger baiters will attack the live badger where he is, and they will be responsible for their actions under the terms of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is entirely candid, as he has always claimed to be, he will accept that the purpose of the Bill is to get the badger baiter and not to try to obstruct fox hunting. That being so, I do not think that he should take the attitude that he does to the amendment.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Upminster, or Darth Vader, as he is known among his admirers, knows that the amendment represents what he fought long to get into the Bill. I do not believe that he or any other Conservative Member supports badger baiting. The one thing that united us throughout was that no one in this place represents badger baiters. Indeed, many of us would do unspeakable things to the baiters when they were caught. In that sense, we are united. The amendment protects the sport that the hon. Gentleman supports, but in which he does not participate—that is, fox hunting. The amendment will make life easier for fox hunters and therefore I am opposed to it, but at this stage I have no alternative but to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 3 line 17, leave out ("two") and insert ("three")

Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment lengthens the period that shall pass before this measure comes into force from two to three months, and I accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Smoke Detectors Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has the authority of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) to speak on his behalf.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Clause 1

NEW DWELLINGS TO BE FITTED WITH SMOKE DETECTORS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Bellingham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Bellingham: Lords amendment No. 1 is an amendment of convenience. As the definitions will be included in clause 6, there is no need for subsection (5).
Lords amendment No. 3 is important. Lord Wade of Chorlton, to whom I pay tribute, received representations from the National House Building Council. I understand that the provisions of the Bill will be enforced by the person who is enforcing the building regulations of 1985, which relate to other aspects of the construction of the dwelling. Before 1984, that work was always carried out by the local authority. It was undertaken exclusively by local council building inspectors. In 1984, the Government decided to allow the private sector to take part by extending authority to inspect to the NHBC. That system has worked well and 35 per cent. of inspections are now carried out by the council.
It is apparent that the system must make sense. Although inspections are often carried out by building control officers who are employed by the local authority, part II of the Building Act 1984 enables building works to be supervised by approved inspectors from the private sector. That is the point of the 1984 Act. The NHBC has been approved as an inspector of the construction of most new dwellings and if it asks that the role of approved inspectors should be specifically recognised in the Bill, that must make sense. It would not be satisfactory if local authorities had to enforce the provisions of the Bill when an approved inspector was enforcing the requirements of building regulations. I am sure that that was not the intention of the Bill.
The new clause is modelled on the relative provisions of the Building Act 1984. When an approved inspector, rather than a local authority, is appointed for the purposes of building control, an initial notice must be served on the local authority. When the approved inspector is satisfied that the work has been completed in accordance with the regulations, he will issue a final certificate to that effect. When an initial notice is in force or a final certificate has been given, the local authority cannot take action to enforce the building regulations.
1 pm
The new clause would operate in exactly the same way if an approved inspector had been appointed in respect of work consisting of the construction of a dwelling. That approved inspector would also be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Bill. He must certify that he has done so when he issues his final certificate. The amendment may be complicated, but it is important, and I hope that I have explained it reasonably competently.
Questions have been raised about exemptions. If the NH BC believes that its staff are fully qualified—and in many ways they may be as well qualified or even better qualified than inspectors employed by local authorities —surely the NHBC should be allowed to make exemptions. There was a lengthy debate about that in the other place which I am sure will continue. At a time when central Government, arguably, are giving more and more work to local authorities in some areas, this may be one area where local authority expenditure could be saved. We will come back to this aspect of the Bill later. In some ways, it is a controversial aspect, which is why, under the Lords amendment, NHBC inspectors would not be allowed to make exemptions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the opening part of his speech. Surely the question whether NHBC staff should be allowed to issue exemptions does not relate merely to qualifications. We accept that its staff are just as good as those employed by local authorities. Perhaps it is a question of people being recognised as being in a position of authority, rather than of the qualifications of those who exercise that authority.

Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and that is probably why the other place decided not to give NHBC staff the power to make exemptions. The NH BC was first allowed into this area of work only in 1984, seven years ago, but it has done extremely well. Some 32 per cent. of all inspections are now done by NHBC staff. Perhaps the time will come when their reputation and standing will have risen to such a level that it will make sense to allow them to make exemptions. I hope that the House agrees to the amendment.
Lords amendment No. 4 is a purely technical amendment which does not require much explanation. It is about definitions. It must be read in conjunction with Lords amendment No. 1, which would delete clause 1(5) because its provisions are repeated in Lords amendment No. 4, which would insert new clause 6.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) for their clear explanations. What will be the precise effect of amendment No. 1, which will remove line 17 onwards of clause 1? Will it exclude reconstructed or converted dwellings, as opposed to those built from scratch? If so, I would regret it.
I freely admit that I come late to the general debate on smoke detectors, but, in common with some other hon. Members, I have been abruptly brought face to face with the importance of the issue. Last week in my constituency, a mother and five of her children died in a council house fire. I began this week by attending their funeral, and it was

the saddest event that 1 have ever witnessed. The House must do whatever it can to make it less likely that such a terrible event will happen again.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view. Smoke detectors can save many lives, and clearly it would have been desirable for the House involved in that tragic accident to be fitted with them. The purpose of the Bill is not to insist on the installation of smoke detectors in all old properties and new houses, but to persuade people to fit them in older properties and to legislate for their fitting in new houses.

Mr. Wilson: I was certainly deeply impressed by my conversation in the aftermath of that tragic accident with the chief fire master of Strathclyde region, Mr. John Jameson. He was emphatic that, in the fire I have described, lives would have been saved if smoke detectors had been fitted to the property. He estimated that about half the lives lost in house fires would be saved if smoke detectors were always fitted. That is a striking statistic in the context of the Bill, and it should be taken account of.
I congratulate also the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on his efforts. The original Bill covered wider ground, but the Government and the House should welcome the coverage given by the Bill to new properties, which is welcome and desirable. I hope that the amendment will extend its provisions to reconstructed or renovated dwellings. However, it still does not go far enough and we must set our sights on something much better. It should be mandatory to fit smoke detectors in all houses and flats—whether they are owner-occupied or private or public sector rented accommodation. If the House shares that view, I am sure that legislation could be easily introduced and with virtually no public expenditure implications.
I do not advocate the armies of inspectors should be established to enforce such legislation. When seat belts became mandatory the law was respected; if we legislated to make smoke detectors compulsory in all homes, I believe that most people would observe the law without weighty enforcement measures.
In the aftermath of the fire in my constituency, in the town of Kilbirnie, there has been massive media interest in smoke detectors. I commend the Glasgow Daily Record for the campaign that it has led, which has had a huge impact on public opinion. I am told that, all over the west of Scotland, the shops that sell smoke detectors, at modest prices, are sold out of them. People have been brought face to face with the fact that, for a few pounds, little lives and big lives can be saved.
Within a few weeks of this tragedy, interest will have moved on to some other subject and the impetus towards installing devices will be lost. The House has a role to play in maintaining that impetus by legislating accordingly.
I have tabled an early-day motion, with the support of the hon. Members for York and for Norfolk, North-West, and with all-party support. As of this morning, 117 signatures have been appended to it and I hope that a great many more will be added in the next few days. I hope that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will sign the motion, since that will bring home to the Government, on a non-party political basis, the impression that the dominant school of thought in the House believes that something can be done, which does not involve significant public expenditure.
This idea commands the wholehearted support of the fire service whose members have to deal with these tragedies—the most emotional and desperate experiences in most people's lives. They have repeatedly asked why cheap smoke detectors cannot be fitted to save lives. I hope that the Government will listen. The idea involves little public expenditure—possibly none. If we legislate accordingly, no one involved has the slightest doubt that lives will be saved—and there are few pieces of legislation of which that could be said with such utter certainty.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I hope that many hon. Members will have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), because what he said about the potential for saving life and avoiding tragedy was correct.
I wish to explain my part in this Bill as it is a rather curious one. Early in the year I objected to it, mainly on the ground that it insisted on introducing smoke detectors for old buildings as well as new. Later when the Bill reappeared I did not realise, perhaps because I had not been told, that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) had removed old buildings from the Bill. The Lords amendments do not reintroduce them. If they did, I would have serious reservations, for reasons that I will make clear—

Mr. Wilson: Since fires undoubtedly happen more often in old houses than in new and lives are lost more often in the former than in the latter, what is the logic of opposing the installation of these devices in older properties while supporting it for new ones?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am not opposed to the installation of smoke alarms in old buildings—far from it. They should be introduced into every single building in the country. Their value is without question. However, what I oppose is legislation that would be ineffective or unenforceable. We should not insist on smoke alarms being introduced into old buildings if the legislation would place a burden on local authorities that they were unable to fulfil. If legislation cannot be enforced, it brings all our legislation slightly into disrepute. Unenforceable legislation is always bad legislation. I shall give the reasons why I believe that this is unenforceable legislation by mentioning the tragedy that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North raised.
1.15 pm
Many people have suggested that there should not be an army of inspectors going round all old buildings as well as all new buildings to discover whether smoke alarms have been fitted and whether they are working. The hon. Gentleman made that point. The only alternative is to ask a person who has suffered a fire in their home whether a smoke alarm had been fitted. That is the only moment at which one can discover whether someone had fitted a smoke alarm. In the tragedy to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if the mother had survived that fire but all her children had been killed, she would have been asked at the worst possible time in her life whether she had fitted a smoke alarm. She would have been asked whether she had broken the law, at just the moment when she had lost her children and was experiencing a tragedy that very few of us can begin to comprehend. To hit someone at that stage with the potential of a criminal case would be inhumane.
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the value of introducing smoke detectors. I have four of them

in my house. Occasionally they go off when my cooker goes wrong and I am delighted that they do. However, to insist that they should be introduced into my house, with the sanction of a criminal penalty, seems to me to be wrong.

Mr. Wilson: I acknowledge the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he accept that his argument is not absolute—that a balance of arguments is involved? While the danger exists of criminalising people who have already suffered a great deal, by definition that is likely to arise in only a tiny number of cases. That has to be weighed against the other certainty that many such fires would be pre-empted if such legislation were on the statute book. There is a balance, regarding which a mature judgment has to be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying a long way from the Lords amendment.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The relevance of this point to the Lords amendment is the question that the hon. Gentleman raised whether the Lords amendment covers old buildings, or whether it refers merely to new buildings. That is a central issue in the debate and it needs to be cleared up before we decide whether to support the amendments. I hope, therefore, that we shall be allowed to debate it.
I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point that it is a matter of balance. I have made my own judgment about the balance, which is partly affected by the question whether local authorities are already inspecting houses. Because of the difficulties that local authorities have in inspecting houses in multiple occupation for normal fire requirements, I believe that they would be burdened with a task that they would be unable to fulfil. For example, they would be burdened with the task of checking whether the batteries of smoke alarms that had been fitted were up to strength. We would create the criminal offence of merely allowing a battery in a smoke detector to run down. We should hesitate long and hard before doing that.
There is an alternative that involves persuasion and as many people as possible listening to the good, persuasive and effective speech that the hon. Member for Cunningham, North made in favour of smoke alarms.

Mr. Michael Stern:: Before my hon. Friend leaves the valid point that he is making, may I ask whether he agrees that in trying not to place a heavy burden on local authorities, we must consider changed construction techniques such as system building? A builder can construct a dwelling at a certain cost only within a certain time scale. If he must wait for a local authority to check smoke detectors, his time scale, work programme and costings will be thrown out.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive my saying that I do not agree with him. The Bill is intended to insist on the installation of smoke detectors and alarms in new buildings, and rightly so, because local authorities must inspect new buildings in any event. They could combine the inspection of smoke detectors with their other inspections of fire doors and foundations. They must he fairly assiduous in inspecting new buildings. The possible application of the Bill to old buildings would place a burden on local authorities.

Mr. Wilson: This is the last time that I shall intervene as I do not wish to prolong the debate. The hon.


Gentleman mentioned multiple occupancy houses. The Strathclyde fire master expressed concern to me about the private rented sector, which is particularly vulnerable to fire. I do not underestimate the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but a balance must be struck, because for the first time the onus to take fire precautions would be placed on the private landlord. Does he agree that the difficulties are outweighed by such an onus being imposed?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree that it is a matter of balance. Further provision could be introduced to deal with the landlords of multiple occupation buildings. I accept that such dwellings are a high risk.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: My hon. Friend made an important point about old buildings and the maintenance of smoke detectors. Should not responsiblity be devolved to insurance companies, which would require the policyholder to maintain the smoke detector because if he did not do so his claim would be invalidated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but it has precious little to do with the amendments that the House is supposed to be discussing.

Mr. Arbuthnot: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to hear that I am drawing my remarks to a close.
A case could be made for placing the onus on insurance companies, but it would be difficult to assess whether a battery was in good condition after a fire had occurred.
I hope that the Bill will not apply to old buildings. Hon. Members can try to raise people's awareness of smoke detectors and try to persuade the owners of old houses, rather than to legislate to install smoke detectors, which are extremely valuable.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have listened carefully to the debate—not without some emotion, as I would undoubtedly have lost my family, or at least my two oldest children, if smoke detectors had not been fitted to my house.
About five or six years ago, the House sat very late one night and I did not go home. It was the first and, I believe, the only time that I have done that without letting my wife know that I should have to stay in London. I had expected to get away, but, as sometimes happens in the House, I was detained much longer than I had expected and was unable to get home. I rang home in the morning at about 8 o'clock and cheerily said that I supposed everything was all right. The reply was almost unprintable because everything was not all right. My daughter, who was then about eight years old, had been asleep in her room and had inadvertently knocked over an electric fire which was allegedly safe for children but was obviously not. The curtains, carpet and furniture in her room had caught fire. She was asleep but the smoke detector went off and, luckily, woke my wife who was in the next room. She went into my daughter's room and turned on the light, but the smoke was so thick that it made no difference and she was unable to see anything. There is no doubt that my children would have perished in the fire if smoke detectors had not been fitted in that room. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to say that, and it is the background of what I have to say about the amendments.
It is important that the Government should make a commitment to ensure that smoke detectors are fitted in new buildings. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) that it would be impractical, though desirable, to insist that they be fitted to all old houses. My house was built in 1570 and I have had many smoke detectors fitted in it, but I do not believe in the concept of the nanny state. Individuals must be expected and allowed to look after their own interests. There is a limit to what the Government can do to interfere by ordering people to take steps in the interests of their own safety, however necessary and desirable those steps might be.
It would be hopelessly impractical for all old houses to be inspected to ascertain whether smoke alarms had been fitted. Would they be inspected every time there was a change of ownership, every time there was a change in the circumstances, or would such an inspection be a one-off operation? It would not be right for the Government to put that burden on local authorities and to force them to inspect every house in their area to check whether alarms had been fitted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford was also right to say that there is no earthly use in fitting alarms unless people are prepared to look after them properly. Human nature being what it is, I am afraid that if alarms were fitted in houses where people did not care whether they worked or not, they would not be properly maintained. It is quite a chore to ensure that batteries arc replaced when they run out and to ensure that the machine is working properly. I do not believe that many people, in practice, would maintain smoke alarms in those circumstances.
Therefore, I query whether the Bill would have the effect that we hope. It is one thing to place a duty on constructors to fit smoke alarms in the houses that they build, as I believe that the Bill as amended would do, but it is another to ensure that they are working when they are needed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I must tell the House that this is not Second or Third Reading. We are debating Lords amendments, and I very much hope that the debate will draw nearer to them than it has come so far.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The part of the amendment with which I shall deal in detail is that which covers inspection. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the Bill into line with the Building Act 1984. It is in that context that we are considering the extent to which it is feasible for those inspections to be carried out, and to be carried out properly.

Mr. Arbuthnot: What I am about to say may to an extent argue against what I said earlier. Smoke detectors are now made with a clever device which means that when the battery is running flat it makes an appallingly nasty squeak. The incentive to change it becomes greater the flatter the battery gets.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is right up to a point, but in the end the squeak also dies. There have been occasions on which, the squeak having died, I forgot about the need to replace the battery and it was a little while before the battery was duly replaced. Although I do not claim to be less fallible than anyone else, I do not think


that I am more fallible. I suspect that that would be reasonably common practice in houses in which smoke alarms are fitted, especially when they are fitted without the agreement of the occupier of the house. There is nothing in the Bill, even as amended, which puts a duty on the occupier of a house either to have a smoke alarm fitted or to maintain it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendment.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I was led slightly astray by the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. I apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that he is coming to the amendment?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am. The question is whether the inspection of the house can be properly carried out, in the context of the amendment and whether only new houses will be fitted with smoke alarms. I question whether the local authorities which will have the duty to inspect the houses will welcome that duty. It is unlikely that local government, which has already rightly complained that central Government continue to give it added responsibilities without enough funds, will welcome an additional duty on its building inspectors or be able to enforce its being carried out. That is the crux of my worry.
I do not believe that the way in which the inspections will be carried out will safeguard the lives of the people in the buildings concerned. The amendment, which beings the matter within the Building Act 1984, is not helpful. It excludes a course that easily could have been taken, which would have enormously strengthened the working of the Act. I refer to the way that outside the context of the 1984 Act, there are many instances in which the National House Building Council inspectors are authorised to make inspections and to do work on behalf of the local authorities.
To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), this is not his Bill, so he may not be able to answer me. I am reasonably confident that, under the terms of the amendment, the NHBC inspectors will not be able to carry out inspection of the properties. If I am right, we are missing a great opportunity to facilitate the inspection of such properties. I would go further. The question of ensuring that the house is a fit and proper dwelling is complicated. It is something which only a qualified building inspector, architect or surveyor can determine. However, the duties imposed by the Bill and the people who are authorised by the amendment to carry them out are not compatible. Anyone can easily check whether smoke alarms have been, or are to be, fitted to houses. It would not take anyone with a great professional qualification to ensure that the smoke detectors are put in places so that the house was safe.

Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If, like me, he has fitted smoke detectors, he will know that the inspection requirements of a building inspector can be different from the inspection requirements for smoke detectors. One must envisage the use to which a particular house, or a room in the house, will be put. For example, there could be no point in putting a smoke detector in a hall if it was the occupant's intention to place a small stove in the hall, directly under the detector because it would be

set of by such things as a deep chip frier. We are extending the requirements of inspection beyond those already in place.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. Buildings can be changed. A room that is not designed as a kitchen may subsequently be used as one. If the person charged with the duty to inspect were charged to do that once, and once only, at completion of the work, there would be a great loophole. It would be much more satisfactory—it may not be too late for the Government to do this—to ensure that many more people are qualified to inspect than is provided for under the new clause.
I strongly believe that the criterion for the inspectorate is far too narrow. If many more people were allowed to inspect, the Bill would be greatly strengthened.
Lords amendment No. 4 refers to construction
by reconstructing or converting a building or any part of a building".
This is where we come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. It is difficult to know where that measure begins and ends. The shell of a house may be reconstituted. Flats in my constituency are vacated for a period and then reconstituted by the local authority. Will such buildings be within the ambit of the Bill? What does "reconstruction" mean? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten me.
If the Bill is to be effective, all substantial building work on houses should be brought within its ambit. It is no use imposing a limited duty on those who construct new houses if the proportion of new houses to the 22·7 million houses in the housing stock—I have not checked the figure—means that the Bill has a limited effect.

Mr. Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend will not have had the chance this afternoon to go on to the Terrace pavilion, which is a semi-permanent construction. Pavilions were erected at Stoneleigh for the Royal Show this week. How would the Bill deal with such places?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On behalf of the Bill's sponsors, I can reassure my hon. Friend. New clause 6 in Lords amendment No. 4 makes it clear that the Bill applies only to dwellings. My understanding of the definition of "dwelling" is that it is something in which people live, as opposed to a place that they visit at Henley or Wimbledon, or the House of Commons. I do not believe that the obligation to install smoke detectors will be imposed on people who erect such places.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) mentioned a loophole. The word "dwelling" is far too narrow a term. I do not necessarily think that smoke detectors should be fitted to every tent at every function, but many constructions that are not dwellings put people in them at great risk. The Bill should cover all places that should be fitted with smoke alarms—for example, restaurants and places that are permanent structures but not dwellings and where large numbers of people congregate.
The Lords amendments leave the provisions of the Bill far too narrow. Those who, under the Bill, have a duty to inspect are a much smaller group than those who are qualified to inspect and could do so. They will be charged with the duty only of inspecting new buildings, and will therefore look at only a tiny proportion of the dwelling houses in Britain. Moreover, as I understand the terms of


the Bill as amended, the duty to install smoke detectors will be placed only upon those who construct dwellings and not upon those who live in them or on those subsequently involved in their sale or resale.
With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), whose worthy aim I applaud, I feel that the achievements of the Bill will be minimal in terms of saving the lives that we all wish to be saved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): We have had a valuable little debate on a Bill which we did not have the opportunity to debate on Second or Third Reading. I shall respond as briefly as I can to the points that have been made.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who is responsible for the Bill. It is an indication of his deep concern about this important issue that he took the trouble to pilot the Bill, which has so far received a fairly smooth passage, through its earlier stages. It is characteristic of my hon. Friend's commitment to his constituency and to the interests of his constituents that he has had to give priority to an engagement in York. He told me this morning how much he had hoped to be here to take his one opportunity to speak to the Bill on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend's constituents are extremely lucky to be represented by such a diligent Member of Parliament; long may he continue here. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has proved to be an admirable replacement and gave an eloquent and concise summary of the amendments. I confess that I was not previously aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject, but he has mastered the detail remarkably quickly.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has apologised for having to leave the House before the end of the debate, and is now on his way to his constituency, spoke movingly of the recent appalling tragedy in Scotland. I entirely understand his views, but I must emphasise that there are very real problems of enforcement. The argument against extending the requirement to all existing dwellings was effectively put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who also apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate. The approach adopted in the Bill is that smoke detectors should be installed in all new dwellings and I hope that by that example, we shall persuade owners and tenants of older dwellings also to install detectors in their homes. The Government are strongly in favour of the installation of detectors in all dwellings—old and new. We do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to extend the criminal law for the purpose of enforcing the installation of detectors in older dwellings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) spoke of his personal experience—of which I did not previously know—of the value of smoke alarms. I point out to him that one advantage of confining the Bill to new dwellings is that such buildings will be routinely inspected—whether by local authorities or by the National House Building Council, as the amendments provide. We can therefore ensure that, at that stage at least, scrutiny confirms that a smoke detector has been installed. That can be done without any additional bureaucratic imposition and without extra time being involved.

Mr. Stern: Will my hon. Friend consider the point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), which was that it is not sufficient simply to inspect to ensure that a smoke detector has been installed? It is also necessary to ensure, by reference to all conceivable uses of the building, that the detector has been installed in the correct place.

Mr. Yeo: I intended to refer to that point, which draws attention to a difficulty. I do not think that it will ever be possible to make 100 per cent. certain that smoke detectors are always in precisely the place that they should be, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave during his earlier intervention. The uses of particular rooms in a house will change from time to time. Unless attention is paid to the position of the smoke detector each time that occurs, there may be occasions when the existence of the smoke detector may not be sufficient to guarantee the prevention of a fire. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends will agree that the provisions make it at least likely that a number of fires that would have occurred will be prevented by virtue of the fact that new dwellings have smoke detectors.
1.45 pm
Furthermore, the process of requiring detectors to be installed in new dwellings and the fact that this debate is taking place today will help to persuade others, particularly in older dwellings, of the importance of installing smoke detectors. We are helping a valuable measure through the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West explained the effect of the amendments very clearly. The most important point is that the crucial role that approved inspectors can already play in the building control system is now recognised by the amendments. They are clearly extremely sensible amendments and the Government fully support them. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

RELAXATION OF REQUIREMENT AS TO SMOKE DETECTORS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Before giving a direction under subsection (1) above, a local authority (other than the Council of the Isles of Scilly) shall consult the fire authority for the area in which the dwelling is or is to he situated.")

Mr. Bellingham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the tribute that he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who, as he rightly said, has had to return to his constituency he has entrusted to me the task of moving the Lords amendments.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Has he gone back to his constituency because he is worried that he will lose his deposit at the next general election?

Mr. Bellingham: No, he has gone back because he is an extremely assiduous and hard-working Member. He has returned to honour a very long-standing engagement. That remark from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was completely unnecessary.
Amendment No. 2 relates to consulting the local fire authority. Clause 2 relates to exemptions. We all agree that there must be some exceptions. For example, when


refurbishing historic homes or other buildings of considerable importance to our heritage it would be out of place to have smoke detectors on a Grinling Gibbons ceiling. Those exceptions and exemptions must be kept to a bare minimum.
We are talking about lives being at stake. On average every year 700 people die in homes as a result of tires in which smoke is involved. In addition, 10,000 people are injured in such incidents every year. Those figures are horrendous. People will recall that appalling disaster when the Piper Alpha platform caught fire. One hundred and sixty-seven people died in that tragedy, but every year 700 people die in their homes as a result of fires. I believe that many of those lives could be saved if those homes had smoke detectors.
In that context, and as we are talking about consulting the fire authorities, I am in order if—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Chair will decide what is and what is not in order. 1 take this opportunity to remind him and the House that I also have a duty to protect the rights of other hon. Members whose Bills await us and are on the Order Paper. I very much hope that the House will debate the Lords amendment and not the generality of clause 2.

Mr. Bellingham: I apologise for trying to usurp your position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will forgive me for that impertinence.
The Norfolk fire service has devised several extremely important initiatives. One of those, its smoke detector campaign, has been running for two and a half years. As a result, 47 per cent. of all dwellings in Norfolk now have smoke detectors. That is 15 per cent. above the national average. In the last calendar year, there were 667 fires and 801 chimney fires in Norfolk. The Norfolk fire service has told me that those figures would have been much worse without its smoke detector campaign, which has increased the number of smoke detectors to an extremely high level. That must not go unrecorded, because it is crucial.
It is important that local authorities produce schemes to install smoke detectors on council estates. Norwich city council has carried out a pilot scheme, which involves a team of officers from the fire service meeting the occupiers of the homes in question to tell them about safety issues. I am informed that one councillor in Norwich, Andy Paynes, carried out a poll which produced the staggering result that since the pilot scheme began, the number of smoke detectors installed in the area has increased by 22 per cent. I am urging my local authority, King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, to introduce a similar scheme. I know that the central area manager, Mr. Simon Beales, will be extremely sympathetic to my suggestion.
The Norfolk fire brigade is right up there in the vanguard and has recently introduced a community fire safety programme. In due course, it will involve every full-time and retained fireman in Norfolk. That shows the conscientiousness, dedication and commitment of the Norfolk fire brigade. Its campaigns have been extremely successful. I urge other fire services to come up with similar campaigns. The Norfolk fire brigade is continually producing newer and better leaflets that are sent out to householders, developers and to the wardens of different housing complexes. They urge people to spend just a small amount of money installing a smoke detector.
As I said, exemptions should be a matter for the fire authority as well as the local authority. That is why I was slightly concerned and surprised that when my hon. Friend the Member for York was piloting the Bill in its early stages, he did not spot the need to involve the fire authorities. That is why their Lordships tabled the amendment, which insists that the fire authority is consulted.
The House may ask why the amendment provides an exemption for the Isles of Scilly. The fact that their Lordships took special note of the Isles of Scilly may be slightly surprising because the amendment is straightforward, except for the categorical reference to "other than the Council of the Isles of Scilly".
I shall try to cast some light on why that exemption has been made. The council of the Isles of Scilly is a remarkable and long-established example of what many people today would regard as a model for local government in the rest of the country. It is a unitary authority with a single tier. The writ of Cornwall county council does not run in the islands—and nor do the services of Cornwall's county fire brigade. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the chief officer of the Cornish fire service also serves as the chief officer of the fire brigade of the council of the Isles of Scilly, although they are separate roles. When dealing with matters in Cornwall, for example, the chief officer uses the writing paper of the county fire service, but when dealing with matters relating to the Isles of Scilly, he uses the paper of the council of the Isles of Scilly. That is a classic Chinese wall.
The question is whether the inhabitants of the Scilly isles will be disadvantaged by the exemption. If an owner or a builder of a new house on the islands has reason to seek exemption from the requirement to install a smoke detector in the property, he would, under the Bill, have to seek permission from the officers of the council of the Isles of Scilly. Those officers will not be provided with any extra help to ensure that they reach proper decisions about whether to grant an exemption. On the fact of it, builders on the Isles of Scilly might find it harder to obtain exemption. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.
Exemption could become an important issue on the Isles of Scilly. It would be difficult to conceive a reason why a new house on the isles should be exempted, but the House will know that very few houses are allowed to be built on the islands. Planning laws are, rightly, extremely strict and little new housing has been authorised on the islands over the past 20 years or so. The House will recall that a former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, used to have a property on the Isles of Scilly and regularly retired there during parliamentary recesses. It is fair to say that Lord Wilson helped to put the Scilly isles on the map. It is unfortunate that he did not have time to contribute to the debates that took place in another place during its consideration of the Bill.
There have been a number of conversions of agricultural buildings on the Isles of Scilly and some of the properties are listed. That raises the question of implementation. Should the installation of smoke detectors in such properties be allowed? It is still not properly defined when the repair on extension of a building will bring it within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that. For those who are engaged on conversions of the sort that are under way on Tresco, the issue remains outstanding.
Could the officers of the council of the Isles of Scilly consult the fire fighters? Each island has a system of retained fireman. Even the smallest island, Bryher—it is only 1·25 miles by 1·25 miles with a population of 76—has access to its own fire service. I am told, however, that house fires are extremely rare and there has not been one in living memory. Perhaps all the houses on the island have been fitted with smoke detectors already.
St. Mary's, the island on which Lord Wilson used to spend his holidays, has a population of 1,600. That population increases substantially in the summer. Like the other islands, it relies on part-time retained fire crews. It is worth saying that such crews are crucial. I have told the House that the Norfolk fire brigade is highly professional and well respected. It relies, however, to a large extent on retained part-time firemen. Those men adopt the highest possible standards of professionalism, training and expertise and they have a commitment and devotion to serving their local community. I pay tribute to the work that is done throughout the country by retained part-time firemen.
There is no doubt that the senior retained men could advise on suitability for exemption, but that would raise a further problem. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the decision whether to exempt will rest with district councils' building inspectors. They will seek the advice of the fire brigade, which will be under the control of the county council. Thus, the advice will come properly from a separate and independent body. On the Isles of Scilly, however, if the council sought the advice of the chief fire officer, wearing the hat or using the notepaper of the Isles of Scilly, it would be seeking advice from itself. That would give rise to accusations of partiality. That is something which those who demand unitary authorities throughout England and Wales might wish to consider. It is worth saying that the debate about the structure of local government will rumble on an on. In the context of the Bill, however, unitary authorities lead to problems when those representing a certain function seek advice and authorisation from another authority. It is an important matter which should be borne in mind.
The only way to avoid the problem would be to summon an independent fire officer from the mainland and from a different force or fire brigade. That, however, would be costly and we must bear in mind the fact that it would add to the cost of new homes on the Isles of Scilly. New homes are needed on the islands for local people, including many in rural areas. It goes without saying that costs are inflated by the distances involved. The sea journey from Penzance to the islands is very expensive and the service operates only from April to early November. The skybus which flies from Land's End operates only in the summer. The only way that a fire officer could visit the islands in the winter would be by helicopter. I understand that the service runs four times a week. Transport between the islands is easier, through the good services offered by the St. Mary's Boatmen's Association.
2 pm
The cost of getting a fire officer from the mainland to the Scilly isles is prohibitive, and there would be a number of important implications for the ratepayers. The independent fire officer might have to spend a few days on the islands because he could not carry out his role in just

a morning or an afternoon. It would not be possible to fly from Penzance to St. Mary's, cross to Bryher by boat, and then get back to the air base at St. Mary's in time for the return flight on the same day, even if the fire officer had only one visit to make. Rough weather might intervene and trap the fire inspector on Bryher for several days. Of course, he would not lack creature comforts as I understand that the services offered by local hostelries are superb. I am trying to explain the implications of the additional costs that would be involved; the extra costs involved in island living are already accepted. It would be an economic nonsense to install testing facilities on all five islands.
Will the amendment have an adverse effect on tourism, which is the mainstay of the economy—although 10 years ago, it was daffodils—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but even he will recognise that he is going too far. He must keep his remarks closer to the amendment.

Mr. Bellingham: I am sorry that you feel that I have strayed too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Lords amendment would specifically exempt the Scilly isles and the House must be made aware of the reason.
I hope that I have managed to explain the background to the position in the Scilly isles, which have a special case. That is why the other place decided to exempt them from the provision that requires the fire service to be consulted. On balance, I think that their Lordships were right. I am aware that a number of them lobbied a great deal about the special circumstances of the Scilly isles.
Ensuring that the fire authority is consulted is at the core of the Bill. It has the experts. I have already mentioned the Norfolk fire service, which has a superb record of informing the public and presenting the case for smoke detectors. The fire service has the professionals and the experts and they need to be consulted. I commend the amendment to the House.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who raised two specific issues. The first is whether fire officers should be consulted when existing dwellings or those about to be constructed are to be given exemptions. The second issue is whether the Scilly isles should be exempted.
It is slightly anomalous that the fire service should be consulted when a local authority is considering whether to grant an exemption, but not consulted on whether or where a smoke alarm should be placed. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the fire service has a body of experts who can best advise on the provision of fire appliances and on fire prevention and protection units. It seems odd to draw that distinction. On the one hand, a local authority is deemed to be the right body to determine that the correct number of smoke alarms have been fitted properly, and in the right place, and will serve to give sufficient early warning of a fire. On the other hand, the authority is not deemed competent to decide whether a new or reconstituted dwelling should be exempted. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West can enlighten me as to why that distinction has been made. It does not seem logical that a local


authority should have the power to act by itself in certain circumstances, but in others cannot be trusted to reach a decision without the intervention of the local fire service.
I was intrigued by the reference to the Scilly Isles. It seems astonishing to exempt them, as I am not aware that the Scillies are less able to provide a fire service check than the many other islands offshore to the United Kingdom mainland. Is there anything special about those isles, as against the Orkneys or Outer Hebrides to the extent that the Scillies alone should be given exemption from what is deemed to be a necessary safeguard in the rest of the United Kingdom?
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West described at length the population of the Scilly isles and said that, in general, they do not have a fire service of adequate strength to undertake the checks required. However, he added that each and every one of the islands —even the smallest—has a resident fire officer. Is there any reason why those officers should not be considered lit and proper persons to undertake the checks required?
As my hon. Friend rightly said, there are few new buildings in the Scillies and the chances of any of them being properly exempted from the provision seems remote. It is a pity that the promoter of the Bill cannot be present, although I fully understand the reason, as I would have enjoyed the opportunity of examining him on precisely how many buildings would fall into the category specifically exempted by the Bill. I will be extremely surprised if at any time in the next five years more than a handful of buildings qualify for the exemption. Is it necessary, therefore, to make such an exemption in respect of the Scilly isles? If the safeguards are thought to be so important for the rest of the United Kingdom, why are they not considered equally important for the Scilly isles?
My hon. Friend mentioned added expense, and there would be additional costs involved in taking over to the isles an officer of the Cornwall fire service, which I understand is the one affiliated to the Scilly isles, to investigate an application for exemption. However, it would be no more expensive than flying someone over to the Mull or Isla, or any of the western isles, where the same criteria must apply. Despite my hon. Friend's admirable introduction to the amendment, I see no reason why the Scillies should he given the exemption that the House is asked to approve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West also raised the question of tourism. I am sure that I would be hauled up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I started talking about daffodils, but the tourist industry is surely the mainstay of the isles' income. The tourists who visit them must be able to expect their safety to be safeguarded there, as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I fail to comprehend why a guest house in the Scillies should be exempted on the basis that the local authority thinks that it should not be required to fit smoke alarms, whereas one in Cornwall will require the consent of the Cornish fire service before it can obtain exemption. We should be wary of legislating for different standards in different parts of the country—the more so when there is no obvious reason why one part should be regarded as different from the others.
I do not intend to block the amendment. The Lords have considered it and they think it appropriate, but I agree to it with great reservations. I see no good reason for exemption for the Isles of Scilly, although the Minister may be able to provide an explanation.

Mr. Stern: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) I found that the introduction to the Lords amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) gave rise to one or two doubts.
In theory we are all against unnecessary legislation and I wonder how necessary this amendment is. It would provide an exemption from the requirement to put smoke detectors in new dwellings. I should have thought that any local authority faced with a request for such an exemption would automatically consult the local fire authority, so do we really need a legislative requirement to do so? Surely the same clause to which the amendment refers provides the opportunity for local authorities to do this. If they refuse an application for exemption there is a right of appeal and, inevitably, the evidence that would be called for during that appeal would be given by the local fire authority. I am not sure whether there is a need to include a legislative provision to this end. I hope that one of my hon. Friends will be able to reassure me on that point.
In many parts of the country there will be unitary authorities. In my part of the world it is likely that either the city of Bristol or Avon county council will cease to exist as a local authority in five years' time. So why do we need a provision stipulating that one part of a local authority must consult another to achieve the aim of the Bill? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, I have no intention of blocking the amendment, but it leaves me worried.

Mr. Yeo: This has been a helpful debate in which important issues have been aired. The introduction to the amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) was a classic of its kind: he explained the matter most clearly. He also took the opportunity to describe the excellent work of the Norfolk fire service, which I commend. It has already had some success with a higher than average rate of installations of smoke detectors.
My hon. Friend asked important questions about the Scilly isles. The amendment deals with exceptions to the general run of things. It is expected that after the passage of the Bill almost all new dwellings will be covered by the requirement to install smoke detectors, so this aspect of the Bill deals with only a small number of cases. I recently saw the structure plan for the isles of Scilly—it is something of an anomaly that it has to have one, given its very small population. Without breaking any confidences I think that I can say that under that structure plan it does not appear that the Bill will have a huge impact, because the number of new dwellings to be built in the Scilly isles in the next few years is relatively small, so it is possible that there will be no exceptions of the sort dealt with by the clause.
The issues were further illuminated by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). It might be best if we monitor the progress of the legislation in the Isles of Scilly by getting my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) to keep an eye on the situation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West will ask him to do that.
The nub of the matter is that the local authority and the fire authority are one and the same body on the Isles of Scilly. That is unique. It does not apply to the parts of western Scotland that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. That fact is the explanation


for the amendment. The amendment does not extend its requirements to the Isles of Scilly because the local authority and the fire authority are the same body.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful for that explanation. I accept that that is the difference between the Isles of Scilly and the outer isles around Scotland—one of which I was not aware. However, that in itself does not seem to be a good reason for the exemption. First, as my hon. Friend said, this is unlikely to have any effect on the Isles of Scilly. Secondly, although it is one and the same authority on the Isles of Scilly, there is a specialist fire service officer there who must be perfectly capable of making the sort of decisions that fire authorities in other parts of the country have to make. It is something of an insult to the specialist fire service officer on the Isles of Scilly that that power should be removed from him.

Mr. Yeo: It may be some time since the affairs of the Isles of Scilly have been discussed in such detail in the House. It is possible, therefore, that the attention of the population of the Isles of Scilly will be drawn to our proceedings. I hope that, on the ground, common sense will prevail. If there is the need for a Chinese wall to be erected, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West, I am sure that the authority is capable of erecting one. In practice, therefore, I hope that the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster will not prove to be a real anxiety, if the situation unfolds as he suggested.
Amendment No. 2 allows the appropriate local authority to dispense with or relax the requirement to fit smoke detectors. There are unlikely to be many situations in which the power will need to be used. The conversion of an historic house into a dwelling is a possible example, but when such a situation does arise it seems sensible to require the building control authority to consult the fire authority before deciding whether to give a direction under clause 2. The amendment will ensure that consultation takes place. It would remove any chance of a local authority deciding, for one reason or another, to cut corners. It would have to consult another body before this dispensation could be granted.
Against that background, the amendment commands the full support of the Government. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Hare Coursing Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

HARE COURSING TO BE ILLEGAL

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, after 'person', insert `wilfully'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'procures'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'or assists at'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'or suffers'.
No. 13, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
No. 16, in page 1, line 7, leave out

`in a competition as to their ability to course hares'.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The amendments have been put together in a package and would amend clause 1 in various ways, through which I shall briefly lead the House.
Amendment No.1 would insert the word "wilfully" after "person" in line 5. The clause would then read:
If any person wilfully causes, procures or assists at, or knowingly permits
and so on. The reason for the insertion of the word "wilfully" is that the question of when someone causes a dog to course a hare is much too wide. Both I and those of my hon. Friends who joined me in tabling the amendment believe that it is important that someone should do so wilfully. In other words, they should have the intention of doing the act that the Bill seeks to prevent before any criminal act can be deemed to have been committed.
It appears that, at the moment, anybody who is out with a dog, or with two dogs, who permits or causes that dog or those dogs to course a hare in the way defined by clause 1 would be guilty of an offence. That person might cause the dogs to do so without intending that that should be the consequence of his actions. For example, he may be walking his two dogs through a field in which there are hares. If his dogs decided to course a hare, it would be possible to argue that he caused the hare to be coursed by the two dogs because he had taken the dogs into that field and released them, after which they had coursed the hare. However, he may not necessarily have intended that they should do so.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will have no difficulty in agreeing with that amendment and that he would not wish to cause somebody who was not acting deliberately to commit a criminal offence. I very much hope, therefore, that he will agree to the amendment.
Amendment No. 2 goes to the heart of the Bill. A quick reading makes it clear that the Bill does not prohibit hare coursing where the object is to catch the hare. Only coursing where the object is to test dogs is to be abolished. That form of coursing is regulated by the National Coursing Club to ensure fair play.
As a supporter of coursing, it is odd that I am moving an amendment that would help the hon. Member for Leyton. However, logic insists that I do so, because under the present ludicrous state of affairs if somebody courses


a hare with two dogs in a competition to test the dogs' ability to course hares he commits a criminal offence, but if he courses with the intention of killing the hare he does not do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention that amendment No. 2 is not included in the group. It is out of order.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that that fact escaped me when I compiled my notes. I hope that I am right in thinking that amendment No. 3 is in the group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Thank you, Sir.
It will be an offence not only to cause coursing—or, as I hope, after the Bill has been amended, "wilfully" to cause coursing—but to procure it. According to the "Oxford English Dictionary", "procure" can mean to take care for, take care of, attend to or look after. Alternatively, it can mean to put forth, employ care or effort, to do one's best, to endeavour, labour or to contrive or devise with care, to bring about by care or pains, to bring about, to cause, effect, produce, to obtain by care or effort, to gain, win, get possession of or acquire. Clearly the word "procure" has a wide range of different meanings which could lead to substantial confusion in the Bill. I do not think that it would be in anybody's interests that there should be less than clarity in the way in which the Bill sets a new criminal offence.
Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, the word "procure" is otiose as the word "causes" appears earlier in the sentence. In the context of the supposed meaning of "procures" in the clause, "causes" or "procures" seem to mean the same. Therefore, the word adds nothing to the clause and it has many irrelevant meanings that could throw a cloud of uncertainty around the Bill if it were unamended. It must be in the interests of clarity and of the Bill that that word is omitted, particularly when "wilfully causes" embraces everything that the hon. Member for Leyton is seeking to achieve.
I gather that the word "procures" was originally included in the Hare Coursing Bill, which was a Government Bill, but was deleted in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton would wish to follow the example of Dr. Shirley Summerskill, who saw the logic of the argument that I am advancing, although it was probably advanced more strongly than I am advancing my argument today. In 1975, the Labour party was prepared to accept the deletion of the word "procures", and I can see no good reason for including it today.
I am slightly nervous that the list that I have is not the correct one, but I hope that amendment No. 4 is in this group.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Yes.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If amendment No. 4 and all my other amendments were accepted the clause would read:
If any person wilfully causes, or knowingly permits or suffers any place to be used for, the coursing of a hare by two or more dogs in a competition as to their ability to course hares, he shall be guilty of an offence".
I do not believe that the "or assists at" adds anything to the clause as it would read if my amendments were accepted. If someone knowingly permits or suffers something to

happen, or if he assists at something, he is clearly knowingly permitting or suffering it to occur. Furthermore, if a man sets his dogs on to a hare and starts to judge them he would then be committing an offence. The question then arises, who are his assistants? Do they know that that is the purpose for which he is letting the dogs go? That seems to go to the heart of the Bill's inadequacy. It will clearly not achieve what the hon. Member for Leyton wishes it to achieve, which is the prevention of hare coursing as we know it.

Mr. Bellingham: Although I sympathise with and respect the campagin waged by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), he is misguided. If the Bill were passed it would encourage the form of illegal hare coursing which does so much to destroy wildlife and the countryside. People would arrive illegally on the land and let their dogs out to course at night without the permission of the landowner. As a result, many more hares would be killed and there would be a great deal of destruction of the local environment. That is exactly what would happen if the Bill became law, so, although we respect the motives and the campaign of the hon. Member for Leyton, our advice to him would be to spend some time in the countryside finding out how it works. He should attend a hare coursing meeting, and I am prepared to invite him to my part of the world to show him at first hand the damage that would be done by illegal hare coursing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton will accept the offer of hospitality from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). Norfolk is a lovely county. It is full of hares and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go and see it.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great scourges of our countryside at the moment is the people who go hare coursing illegally, usually with lurcher dogs, usually in the middle of the night and always against the wishes of the landlord. In Hertfordshire, especially—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would stop interrupting.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have not started yet.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has not started yet, he is mistaken. He is making a confounded nuisance of himself from a sedentary position which is only mildly preferable to the nuisance that he makes of himself when he stands up.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is not trying, yet again, to prevent an hon. Member who has the support of the House from getting a Bill passed to protect wild animals from bloodthirsty louts who participate in blood sports?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have no intention of allowing on to the statute book a Bill that does not have the support of most hon. Members, most of my constituents or most people in the country.

Mr. Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend was talking about bloodthirsty louts who course in the middle of the night.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I was, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. They come in all shapes, sizes and guises and even sometimes halfway through the day. The people to whom I referred and who have been coursing lurchers in the middle of the night in Hertfordshire are extremely dangerous. They are thugs and they are dangerous to the landowners, their gamekeepers and anyone else who gets in their way. I know of instances where they have threatened and badly beaten people who have tried to stop their illegal activities.
If the hon. Member for Leyton is keen to stop something that is against the interests of the countryside and certainly against those of the hare, he should join me in asking for much stronger penalties for such illegal activities instead of attacking the legal hare coursing which takes place under the rules of the National Coursing Club and which, as we said in Committee and earlier, is a pastime enjoyed by many people and in which few hares are killed. It is a sport of great skill whereby the dogs are pitted against each other. Such activity is legal and should remain legal. It gives a great deal of pleasure to many people who live in and understand the ways of the countryside.
It is extraordinary that Opposition Members can never realise the link between country sports and conservation. They should realise that they cannot have the countryside that they and their constituents enjoy unless they allow the people who live in it to live as they have for centuries and to continue the practices of centuries which are necessary to maintain the balance of nature. It is the activities of Opposition Members and certainly not—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

To be further considered on Friday 12 July.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (EXTENSION OF POWERS BILL)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Not moved.

PUBLIC SERVICE CONTRACT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RAILWAY RE-OPENINGS (TRIBUNAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Robert Adley: Disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Adley: The next disgraceful Friday, Sir.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

MISUSE OF DRUGS (ANABOLIC STEROIDS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 July.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

VETERANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 July.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Tom Cox: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

YOUNG PERSONS (ALCOHOL ABUSE) ETC. BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Cox: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE (RECONSTRUCTION) BOARD BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

GARDEN SUPPLIES (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

EMPLOYMENT (UPPER AGE LIMITS IN ADVERTISEMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABOLITION OF POLITICAL HONOURS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ABOLITION OF WARRANT SALES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

WELFARE OF CALVES (EXPORT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Harry Cohen: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July

EDUCATION (SWIMMING AND WATER SAFETY) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LICENSING OF TICKET SALES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 19 July.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 July.

ABOLITION OF DEER HUNTING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I did not hear anyone object, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I suppose it must have been one of the unspeakable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

COHABITATION (CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RIVER SAFETY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

MARINE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

EDUCATION PROVISION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PET ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

GAMING (BINGO) BILL

Order for Seccond Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

FORESTRY COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (ANIMAL TESTING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PARISH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

COAL IMPORTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On behalf of 5 million pensioners, I beg to move—

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

HEALTH CARE OF PRISONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Tony Banks: With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Tony Banks: As before, Sir.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

VAGRANCY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. David Amess: With permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Sir, Friday next.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

MEDICAL QUALIFICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Sir G. Vaughan.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must point out that Mr. Speaker has on a number of occasions made it clear that he deprecates the practice of taking the Committee stage without adequate notice. However, there is nothing that I can do to stop it.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Notification was given, I understand.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

COMMUNITY CHARGE (DISQUALIFICATION FOR NON-PAYMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 July.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Henry Bellingham: With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Sir, Friday next.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (FINANCIAL INTEREST) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO NEIGHBOURING LAND BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Ward.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat the deprecatory words of Mr. Speaker, of which I reminded the House earlier.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (VIDEO SUPPLY) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT (INSPECTIONS) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 9th July, the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to Sittings of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which he may have selected which may then be moved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.

Ordered,
That, if the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on British Railways Board (Finance) Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (FINANCE) BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Hospital Admissions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Clive Soley: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Brown, and of the Parkside health authority. On 15 August 1990 my constituent, Ian Brown, wrote to me saying that his wife had been the victim of a medical accident at Charing Cross hospital, which is in the Riverside district health authority area. That accident resulted in severe scarring of Mrs. Brown's right arm and restricted use amounting to disability. It is not the purpose of this debate to go into the details of the accident; that is a matter for attention elsewhere and I do not intend to refer to it further.
What happened afterwards is, however, a matter for this debate and it is a matter on which I seek some answers from the Minister. A number of corrective operations were to be carried out on Mrs. Brown. One operation was carried out, and helped to ameliorate the immediate problem to give more time for further repair work to be carried out which would deal with the worst of the scarring and improve the functioning of the arm to some extent. The corrective surgery was to be done at St. Mary's hospital in the Parkside health authority area.
Four attempts have been made to carry out that operation and all four have been cancelled. The first was due in autumn 1990. Then, in December 1990, the second operation was cancelled. To set my remarks in context, I should explain that all the operations were cancelled at the very last moment. Mrs. Brown and her husband prepared themselves for her admission to hospital for an important operation—of particular relevance because the NHS had created the problem, albeit by accident, in the first place —and Mrs. Brown was emotionally ready to go into hospital, only to discover on the day itself or the previous day that the operation had been cancelled.
After the second cancellation I wrote to Neil Goodwin, general manager of St. Mary's hospital. I quote from his reply of 17 January 1991 because he puts the problem in context. He wrote:
The poor availability of beds for booked admissions was as a result of a greater than expected number of admissions being accepted via the Accident and Emergency department who must take priority and whose number cannot be accurately predicted. This unfortunately resulted in the cancellation of some of the elective admissions.
Five elective orthopaedic admissions were scheduled for 12 December 1990. Of these two had malignancies of the bone, two were booked for total hip replacements and the fifth was Mrs. Brown.
All patients scheduled for admission are assigned a priority and, on this occasion with only two beds available for elective admissions, the bone malignancy patients were admitted.
With regard to future admissions for Mrs. Brown, I am pleased to inform you that from 7 January an additional 14 orthopaedic beds will be opened and, since she has been cancelled more than once, she will be given priority as an elective admission.
Needless to say, those last words are relevant to the rest of my comments.
Mrs. Brown's next appointment was for 13 March 1991. Again, it was cancelled because of a lack of beds. Mr. Brown then tried to have his wife transferred to a hospital list outside London, although he and his wife were


obviously upset at having to do that given that they felt that the accident had taken place as a result of an NHS operation in the first instance.
On 9 April I wrote to the Minister for Health saying that the operation had been cancelled and I was told in what I understand was a verbal statement that there was little prospect of treatment at St. Mary's. On 7 May I received a reply from Baroness Hooper saying that she had passed the letter to Michael Hatfield, chair of Parkside health authority.
This is one of the most important complaints that I have on behalf of my constituents. When we encounter such a problem, which is clearly one of underfunding of bed spaces, traditionally and quite appropriately hon. Members can write to the Minister who must answer to the House for the state of the health service. However, consistently over the past few years, hon. Members—myself included—have found that their letters have been passed on with a one paragraph sentence from the Minister claiming that it is a matter for the health authority. In other words, the Minister avoids having to answer the key question and the buck is passed to the local health authority.
Michael Hatfield wrote to me on 13 May 1991 saying:
It is obviously highly regrettable that Mrs. Brown's surgery has had to be cancelled on several occasions. Every effort is made to ensure that patients previously cancelled are given priority admission".
One could forgive Mr. and Mrs. Brown thinking that that priority admission was not happening. Mr. Hatfield continued:
however bed availability remains subject to the number of emergency admissions, which must always take precedence over less urgent treatment. St. Mary's currently has an extra 12–20 emergency admission patients occupying medical beds as a result of increased demands on their emergency care service, and this unfortunately does compound the problem.
There are indeed plans to open a 14-bed day ward at St. Mary's in the next few months which will provide facilities for orthopaedic surgery. This will be very valuable in helping to reduce the number of orthopaedic cancellations, and as the revision of Mrs. Brown's scar could very easily be undertaken as a day case, the consultant in charge of her case would consider it suitable for this facility.
The chairman of the health authority is clearly claiming that the problem is a shortage of beds. A new admission date was given, this time for 19 June 1991—just under a month ago—but again it was cancelled, and again the reason was lack of beds.
I should like to go back to the 50th report of the Public Accounts Committee on the use of operating theatres in the national health service. The Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), produced a useful report which was widely welcomed by many people. It gave a helpful description of the problems and of what should be done about them. The chairman of the theatre sub-committee of St. Mary's hospital, the hospital which we are discussing today, wrote to my right hon. Friend—I shall let the Minister have a copy of that letter in due course because I am not sure of the procedures or whether he will be able to get one from the PAC—stating:
I think it is clear from those two tables that the chief reason for cancellation of operating sessions is lack of availability of beds and that not one session was cancelled"—
I emphasise "not one"—
for lack of medical staff during the period studied.

The relevant period covered eight months in 1988. The letter continued:
It also seems that a chief reason for cancellation, at very short notice, of admission of patients for planned operations was that there was no bed available for them, that bed being occupied by another acutely ill patient…
The report from your Committee does show concern about the provision of service of patients admitted through the Accident and Emergency Department and this concern is shared by many of us who feel that the provision of emergency services in this country is not as it should be. It seems to me that the distinction between emergency and elective work is over-simplified. I think it best to regard emergency admissions as those in which life is threatened and which required treatment or operations within hours. Next, inevitable cases where operation must be done within twenty-four to forty-eight hours and a good deal of fracture work comes into this group and finally, those cases where admission is truly elective and can be planned well in advance.
I certainly do not take the view—I am sure that Mr. and Mrs. Brown would not do so either—that an accident and emergency admission should not be given priority over Mrs. Brown's operation. That is not what is central to this argument. It is not a matter of Mrs. Brown's operation being postponed because of a greater emergency, but of insufficient beds being available when there are sufficient surgeons and sufficient theatre time to carry out both the emergency surgery and the elective surgery of the type that Mrs. Brown needed—and needed as a result of an NHS accident in the first place.
The figures attached to the report sent to me and to the Public Accounts Committee show that in April 1988 a total of 81 beds were not available to surgical patients, and that 60 planned surgical admissions were cancelled. The number of beds not available for surgical patients varies from the low figure of 15 to a cancellation rate of 105. Perhaps more relevantly, the overwhelming reason for the cancellation of theatre sessions is given as a lack of beds. In April 1988, 27 operations were cancelled because of a lack of beds; in May, the figure was 17; in June, 30; in July, seven; in August, 21; in September, 19; in October, 36; in November, 36; and in December, 25. I am told that the position has probably worsened since then.
It is interesting that very few cancellations were made for other reasons. Statutory holidays probably accounted for the next biggest cause of cancellations. Another reason sometimes given for cancellations is that the patient does not turn up, but the figures show that there were never more than seven such cancellations and usually only one or two. There is no example of an operation not being carried out because no surgeon or anaesthetist was available. In other words, the operations could have taken place if the beds had been available. Bed availability is fundamental to the debate.
I am not using the opportunity to raise these matters as a way of knocking the Government's running of the health service. None the less, I think that the Government run it badly. We all know the general view of the public on the issue. I am here to speak for Mr. and Mrs. Brown, and specifically for Mrs. Brown, who suffered from the accident to which I have referred. If more beds were available at St. Mary's hospital, the operation could have been performed.
I asked someone at St. Mary's hospital—someone in a position to know—how many beds would be needed, and whether as many as 100 beds would be needed. I was told that the number would probably be significantly less than that. The staff and the necessary operating theatres are available, so why can we not provide sufficient beds—


perhaps another 30 or 40, possibly fewer, I am not in a position to know—to enable an operation to take place on Mrs. Brown's arm and to permit the many similar operations which in the past have not been performed, thereby causing the sort of distress and anger that Mr. and Mrs. Brown have experienced. We know from the figures of 1988 that the number must be considerable.
People prepare themselves emotionally and physically for operations, whatever those operations may be. In Mrs. Brown's case, it will be a restorative operation on her arm. People make themselves ready to go into hospital, only to be told at the very last moment that the operation cannot take place because a bed is not available. Other arguments can be advanced. For example, if the Government had accepted the no-fault compensation Bill—the National Health Service (Compensation) Bill—that might have helped Mr. and Mrs. Brown, who are caught up in what is for them a personal nightmare.
My central question for the Minister is directed to bed availability. Why cannot additional beds be provided in a hospital such as St. Mary's? No one is arguing that the hospital needs hugely increased resources for additional surgeons and operating theatres—it merely needs additional beds to enable it to carry out elective surgery so that no one has to suffer four cancellations in one year. Indeed, it is still not known, and cannot be known, when Mrs. Brown's operation will be carried out. For all I know, she might be in the same position 12 months from now. That must be deeply unsatisfactory and deeply distressing to Mr. and Mrs. Brown. I hope that the Minister will address himself to these matters.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has raised an issue which perhaps can be debated at two levels. First, there is the case of Mrs. Brown and, secondly, there is the issue that is illustrated by her sad and unacceptable position.
I shall begin by dealing with Mrs. Brown's specific case. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, for the purposes of the debate we need not concern ourselves directly with how she came to need the treatment that she now requires, which is being discussed in the context of St. Mary's hospital. In the context of the debate, the salient points are clear. Mrs. Brown was referred to St. Mary's to receive treatment that she clearly needs. I saw photographs of her on the lunchtime news on television and no one would dispute that she needs treatment and is entitled to receive it from the national health service if it is possible to improve the condition of her arm.
Mrs. Brown was referred to St. Mary's to receive treatment. On four occasions she expected to be admitted to receive it and on four occasions there were cancellations. That is the issue which the hon. Gentleman raised and he has sought to expand it into a discussion of bed availability, which he sees as the principal cause of cancelled operations.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from Parkside health authority. It is important that it should be clearly on record that the unit general manager of St. Mary's has offered his apologies to Mr. and Mrs. Brown for the delay in Mrs. Brown's treatment, and an admission that the management of her treatment in hospital is not such as to

satisfy the hospital managers. His apologies and admission do not treat Mrs. Brown, but they make it clear that no one thinks that the record is satisfactory.
I shall go a stage further and say that the Government wish to state clearly that repeated cancellations, even of non-urgent admissions to hospital, are not regarded by us as an acceptable managerial technique. Some cancellations are the inevitable consequence of a commitment to use national health service resources effectively.
It would be unrealistic for any Minister or Government to give an undertaking that there will never be a cancellation of a non-urgent admission. However, repeated cancellations for the same patient are not acceptable and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not regard that as acceptable. The records of individual NHS hospitals on repeated cancellations for the same patient requiring non-urgent treatment is one of the measures of the quality of health care delivered by a particular hospital and we look to health authorities to measure and monitor that through the contracting system.
It is important that the House understands why non-urgent admissions inevitably will be cancelled on occasions if we are to maintain our commitment—which I believe is shared across the House—to use the resources available to the NHS as effectively as possible. Non-urgent admissions are planned into a hospital's programme as and when beds and other resources become available. It is important not to regard beds as the only resource; they are one of many resources available to a hospital, all of which must be marshalled to treat a particular patient. There is no magic about beds—

Mr. Soley: I understand the Minister's point in general, but my understanding of this case is that the problem is specifically a lack of beds.

Mr. Dorrell: We must examine why, sometimes, beds are cited as the reason for a particular operation not being carried out. Bed unavailability can be caused by a number of factors. It can be because of emergency admissions—the example cited by the hon. Gentleman—or it can be because of an unexpected length of stay required by an existing patient. It is not just the admissions that determine bed availability, but whether a patient is discharged from hospital within a reasonably expected time. It involves the patient load in a hospital at any one time.
Bed availability is also affected by staff availability. There may be an epidemic in winter months and hospital staff—like staff in any organisation—are susceptible to illness. Often we are told that operations are cancelled because beds are not available, but the reason could be that there have been too many admissions for the bed capacity or because there have been too few discharges. It could also be that there is an inadequate number of people to staff all the physical beds in a hospital, "Beds" is simply a useful tag to hang on all those different sets of circumstances that can lead to a bed space not being available at the time that the patient needs it for a non-urgent admission.

Mr. Soley: I must press the point. Mr. Hatfield said that the problem was caused by emergency admissions. In his letter he said that
bed availability remains subject to the number of emergency admissions, which must always take precedence over less urgent treatment.


I understand that argument. The case that I have raised relates not to patients having to stay longer than expected in hospital, but to emergency admissions.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman must think about the position of a hospital manager. He may want to admit Mrs. Brown or another patient for non-urgent treatment in the following week. In order to tell Mrs. Brown that that treatment will be possible, he must ask, first, whether the necessary number of staff are available to give Mrs. Brown the treatment that she needs. The second question that he must ask himself is whether a bed will be available. He must make a judgment about the number of beds needed for emergency admissions and in the case in question, that factor may have been underestimated. He must also estimate the rates of patient discharge, because over a given period, a hospital will discharge as many patients as it admits.

Mr. Soley: If we are arguing a general case, I would agree with the Minister, but in the case in question, beds were unavailable as a result of emergency admissions. There is no suggestion by anyone, anywhere, that insufficient staff were available to undertake the operation. I have been clearly told that if the extra bed had been available, the operation would have been done regardless of other emergency operations—and that they, too, would have been performed.

Mr. Dorrell: I was seeking to analyse the different factors that lead to cancellations in general. It seems that the variable underestimated in that instance was the extent of emergency admissions, but the following day it could have been one of the other variables. Bed availability could have been quoted as the factor in any of the three instances, arising from different underlying factors.
It is not necessarily right to conclude that all problems can be solved by increasing bed space. However, it must be said that St. Mary's management, in order to meet the contract standards required by its health authority since 1 April, concluded that the hospital's bed space is inadequate. Although the chairman's letter said that the committee was then proposing to commission an additional 14 beds, it intends over the next few weeks to commission a further 20 beds. Bed capacity must be regarded by any sensible manager as a resource element, but the important question is not how many beds or doctors are at his disposal but the quality of service provided to patients.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman three times and I want to move on to echo one of the themes that he sought to develop.
The Government do not apologise for pressing home their policy that NHS hospitals must use their cash as effectively as possible. There should be a clear steer to all health service managers that they are expected to use all their resources—beds, clinical skills and staff—as effectively as possible. However, I reiterate that the Government do not regard repeated non-urgent cancellations as an acceptable managerial practice. However, efficiency and effectiveness are not purely accounting concepts and the optimum use of resources tends to lead to cancellations for the reasons that I explained—although the hon. Gentleman may not accept that argument in respect of his specific constituency case.
We must ensure that all health service hospitals match high standards of service as well as keeping within narrow measurements of cost efficiency. Under the contracting service that we put in place on 1 April, we require health authorities to speak to provider units, and particularly to hospitals, to agree standards of service that the authorities, using health service resources, expect their hospitals to provide to the patients on whose behalf the authorities purchase the service.
One of the standards of an acceptable service should be a limit on the number of times—apart from in exceptional circumstances—a hospital should be allowed to cancel non-urgent admissions. The new purchasing function of the health authorities should be used, through the contracting system, to limit this type of management action by health service hospitals even though it arises from an entirely laudable commitment to using the resources of the health service as efficiently as humanly possible. Sometimes in their enthusiasm to do that there is a danger that managers do not adequately consider other vital quality factors from the point of view of the patient.
The hon. Gentleman was right to invite the House to dwell for a moment on the plight of his constituent, who four times prepared herself to come into hospital and four times—on the same day or immediately before it—found her operation cancelled. To secure the efficient use of resources, once or twice is perhaps unavoidable, but repeated cancellations should be deprecated and limited —and we look to health authorities to do that. We have given them the weapon, in the contracting system, to limit such occasions and to insist that provider units—hospitals —are held to account and given management objectives not only of cost efficiency but of improving the quality of service, so that NHS patients in future will not have to suffer the sort of treatment that Mrs. Brown has suffered in the past few months.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Three o'clock.